Re: Building on CygWin

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

"Robin Davies" <address@hidden> writes:

> Yes. Quite correct. Ammeded on the wiki, although the methods I suggest for
> snagging a working copy of guile might not be the best way of going about it
> (definitely more practical than trying to build guile from the source
> distribution by the looks of it, though).

Ok.

> Honestly, I'm not quite straight on how the current cygwin setup.exe differs
> from the one you use (other than the redecorating).

I try to keep the differences as small as possible.  That's not too
easy, as setup.exe is under heavy development.  Now that the 'other
url' feature is included, both can be used.

Our own archive supplies some programs that were not or can never be
part of the cygwin distribution (contribution of new cygwin packages
has just been reopened half a year ago).  This used to include miktex,
python-win32 and others.  For a correct setup, these programs also
needed wrapper scripts.

With setup.exe as it is, we could drop our own, redecorated version
and tell people to point to ftp://ftp.lilypond.org/pub/LilyPond/cygwin
or http://lilypond.org/cygwin (I think you need the paths in those urls).

> I do know that your setup.exe grumbles (something about a newer
> version of setup) when it's run after cygwin setup.exe has run, but
> not vice versa.

That's just a friendly grumble (I hope).  It depends on the version
listed in setup.ini.  If ours is newer, cygwin's setup grumbles, if
cygwin made a fresh release, ours will grumble.

> Which is safer?

Whichever works.  Our setup.exe should probably install guile
correctly, and some day an incompatible change may be incorporated
into Cygwin's setup.exe.  Then you have the odd problem with the
executable itself, this week the guys at Cygwin goofed, but I've been
known to goof as well.

> I was a little concerned that I would be downgrading packages in the
> cygwin distribution if I installed everything in the lilypond.org
> setup.ini, but that may just reflect my discomfort with the cygwin
> setup tool.

Setup.exe should not downgrade, but I think that's still on the
wishlist.  Visiting lilypond.org, and then cygwin.com should be
supersafe.

> I guess there's three problems, not two. I set
>
>    LDFLAGS='-L/usr/lib/python2.2/config -lpython2.2.dll'
>    ./configure
>
> And get the following in config.make
>   USER_LDFLAGS = -L/usr/lib/python2.2/config \
>      -lpython2.2.dll\
>       -L/usr/lib -lguile\
>       -L/home/fred/usr/src/cygwin/cygwin-1.3.10/usr/lib\
>       /home/fred/usr/src/cygwin/cygwin-1.3.10/usr/bin/cygwin1.dll \
>       -lm
> I have no idea where /home/fred/usr/src/.. comes from.

ARG, that's where I build my guile.  The output is from the
'guile-config' program.  Is that still in the latest guile release?
Wait a minute... you're looking at my dummy cross build helper.

Somehow it seems that /usr/bin/guile-config has no executable bits
set.  Could you try

    chmod +x /usr/bin/guile-config
    rm config.cache
    LDFLAGS='-L/usr/lib/python2.2/config -lpython2.2.dll' ./configure

I'll fix the guile release later.

> build. But editing still seems to be neccessary. Opinions?

We should try to fix this.

> I haven't yet posted this. The workaround posted earlier by George Orwell on
> the dev list corrects the problem

Yes, that fix is in CVS.

> I don't actually know where the cvs repository is for lilypond.

Good point.  New wiki page:

   http://lilypond.org/wiki?CVS
   
>> > 5. The install make procedure can't deal with .exe files.
>>
>> I've made a hack for this, years ago.  It seems that either this hack
>> broke, or it doesn't get used.  Could you try latest cvs, or edit
>> config.make so that
>>
>>    INSTALL='$(stepdir)/../bin/install-dot-exe.sh'
>>
> Fails with the following error:
>
> true
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/lilypond-1.5.55/Documentation/windows'
> /bin/sh ../.././stepmake/stepmake/../bin/install-dot-exe.sh -c -d
> //etc/postinst

Ok, I'll try again.  Collapsed directory constructs '//' indicate
another SMB host in Cygwin.  Fix in CVS.

>> All in all, it seems not too painful for a windows build?
>
> Yes. I agree. It was amazingly painless!

Didn't one of us forget a ;-) there?

Greetings,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org