Re: 64-bit version of Lilypond?

[Hans Åberg]

> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:12, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>>> IMHO this wouldn't be a serious problem – it's mainly about easily
>>>> getting distributable LilyPond binaries for the Mac.  We could even
>>>> re-pack them together with documentation in case this makes sense.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps it is not there because in a typical autoconf configuration
>>> one has to make explicit 'make pdf' and 'make install-pdf'.  It
>>> would be nice to have it, so one does not have to go to the site and
>>> download it by hand.  With MacPorts, one would get it all
>>> automatically when updating the packages.
>> 
>> Well, building the documentation is not trivial.  It is certainly
>> doable within MacPorts; however, the Portfile isn't set up for that,
>> and I guess it would add a lot of additional dependencies.
> 
> Well, it certainly is not desirable when the documentation is missing
> but the GPL demands providing the source code and associated scripts for
> everything you distribute.

I think it suffices to have it provided, not necessarily in a specific main 
distribution. These days, Internet should suffice.

MacPorts admits distinguishing between dependencies for build and the binary 
installer, so the latter can have just the docs without the stuff required to 
build it.