Re: packaging lilypond as a docker container?

[David Kastrup]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>>> GUIX is Jan's current project. I think it has some similarities to
>>> GUB, but it is focused on providing an environment where all binaries
>>> are reproducibly built from source. This is much more ambitious than
>>> GUB, and seems overkill compared to what we need for LilyPond. I think
>>> using it also entails many more compilation steps, which would makes
>>> the release process slow again.
>>
>> I don't think it has an answer for the elephant in the room: Windows.
>
> FWIW, four years ago I created a prototype
>
>     https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2016-03/msg00204.html
>
> enough for me to decide never to touch GUB again.  Don't get me wrong,
> doing GUB was great and I could make some good use of what we learned to
> redo this in Guix; I just think creating a custom build for LilyPond is
> not making good use of our time.
>
> Creating a LilyPond [cross] build that nobody uses is also not very
> inspiring; so I abandoned/paused the project at the time.

I did not remember you posting this at the time, and my reply at that
time
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2016-03/msg00205.html>
appears enfuriatingly unrelated.  Basically I don't comment at all but
rather complain about GUB.

Trying to beat sense into what I wrote at the time, this was an
endorsement for replacing GUB with Guix, given that it appears to cover
the respective bases.

> You are probably aware that Guix produces generic, relocatable
> GNU/Linux binaries as well as docker containers.

As previously said: I don't worry much about installers for the free
UNIX-like systems since people prefer going by distribution installers
on those in general.  What we have to cover definitely is Windows, and
preferably MacOSX (but the latter one appears to have sailed, at least
in connection with GUB, unless we find some OpenDarwin-like approach for
64bit).

I have no experience with Docker containers, but the posting from 2016
you referenced appears to rather point to a native binary?

-- 
David Kastrup