Re: LilyPond 2.23.8 released

[Freeman Gilmore]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:03 AM Carl Sorensen <carl.d.sorensen@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 7:31 AM Freeman Gilmore <freeman.gilmore@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 9:04 AM Tim's Bitstream <timmcn@bitstream.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2022, at 9:32 PM, Freeman Gilmore <freeman.gilmore@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 7:58 PM David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Freeman Gilmore <freeman.gilmore@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:50 PM David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We are happy to announce the release of LilyPond 2.23.8. This is
>>>> termed
>>>> >> a development release, but these are usually reliable. If you want to
>>>> >> use the current stable version of LilyPond, we recommend using the
>>>> >> 2.22.2 version.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In this release, dropping Guile 1.8 support has finally become
>>>> possible
>>>> >> also for our sources. We'd like to dedicate this release to Ian Hulin
>>>> >> who was one of the first systematically working on our numerous
>>>> >> roadblocks for Guile 2 migration after tackling a few other
>>>> high-level
>>>> >> problems. In the time spans where his health permitted it, he was
>>>> able
>>>> >> to significantly reduce the amount of remaining problems for the
>>>> Guile 2
>>>> >> migration after having started working on them in 2010, making the
>>>> goal
>>>> >> that we finally reached now more tangible for others to work on
>>>> after he
>>>> >> left us in 2015.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> David Kastrup
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there going to be a non binary version for windows coming soon?
>>>>
>>>> The source code is the same independent of operating system, so you
>>>> apparently don't mean "source code" when you say "non binary".  What
>>>> would your expectations of a "non binary version for windows" be?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David Kastrup
>>>>
>>> Ok i see it now, but this was my problem.   I know that the source code
>>>  (binary) is usually the same for all but I have never worked with source
>>> code  for LilyPond so when I read this, "Documentation writers and
>>> testers will generally want to download the latest binary:" with 5
>>> binaries listed below,   *Note, the colon should be a period;* and make
>>> it look like it is not the header for a listing.   I may not b the only
>>> dummy out there!.
>>> Thank you, ƒg
>>>
>>>
>>> This sounds like a conversation at cross purposes.
>>>
>>> If you want to compile your own binary from source code, download the
>>> source code and follow the instructions that you will find in the directory
>>> (folder in Mac terms, don't know which language Windows uses).
>>>
>>> If you just want to install a working application, then download and
>>> install the appropriate one of the precompiled ones from that list.  This
>>> is what I do because it is just a lot simpler.    I haven't compiled from
>>> source in years since somebody else volunteers to do that for use with my
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Linguistically the colon looks fine to me, since it indicates "use one
>>> of the following:"
>>>
>> One of the following  binaries.   Sorry, that is the way I read it.
>>  I understand what is meant now.   But if you do not have a clue what a
>> binary is then My understanding of english is the header indicates that
>> there are 5 binaries.    It is not my website so leave it as it is.
>> It has what I am looking for now that I am clear that Lilyond one Windows
>> x86_64.   for all.   Like you, i am not interested i  the binaries.
>>
>
> LilyPond does *not* have one binary for all.  It has one source code for
> all.
>
That helps

>
> I think that there can be a bit of confusion here due to the fact that two
> elements in the list aren't binaries.  There are three binaries: GNU/Linux
> x86_64, macOS x86_64, and Windows x86_64.  Then there are two other
> links: Source code and instructions for building with MacPorts.  Perhaps we
> could separate the binaries from the other links.  That's what we do on the
> stable download page.
>

So I was wrong from the start.   I was looking for the program for
windows, Windows
x86_64,. not realising that the program I was looking for was a binary
which is compiled from the source code.
Sorry this is all stuff from the past at one time i understood, just
confused.
Thank you all for help with this, i have what i need, ƒg

>
>

> HTH,
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>