[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3.0?
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: 3.0? |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Jan 2014 20:29:22 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:07:07PM +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> But it would probably make it more attractive for the consumer
> market if it had a nice default GUI. I personally would be pleased
> to see Frescobaldi become such a default GUI (of course not cutting
> out other options). Particularly given the prospect of Frescobaldi
> providing graphical editing capabilities soon (and provided we'll
> get the Mac OSX installation sorted out).
>
> Would such a step be _conceptually_ acceptable or should LilyPond
> remain "GUI-agnostic"?
I don't think that such a step would be conceptually acceptable
(we could always provide a "stripped down" binary package without
the editor). However, cross-compiling and distributing
Frescobaldi would be a huge undertaking.
- Graham
- 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Mike Solomon, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: 3.0?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Carl Peterson, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, karl, 2014/01/09
- Re: 3.0?, Paul Morris, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Carl Peterson, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, karl, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, karl, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Carl Peterson, 2014/01/10
- Re: 3.0?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/10