Re: MacOS release help

[Carl Sorensen]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 3:49 PM Alex Harker <ajharker@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a continuation of the discussion from lilypond-user@gnu.org
> <mailto:lilypond-user@gnu.org> in a more appropriate place.
>
> I’m responding to Jean and Jonas together as the two most recent sets of
> comments were strongly related.
>
> > On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:33, Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
> >
> > I was actually *glad* to see the LilyPad app disappearing….
>
> > On 17 Oct 2022, at 21:01, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> wrote:
>
> > This was discussed before, and we *wanted* to get rid of LilyPad.
> > Please see Jean's answer for more details.
>
> Apologies for retreading old ground - I was unaware that this was the case
> and I’ve obviously misunderstood what you were getting at earlier in the
> thread entirely. Imistook the comments about a Lilypond app and dmg earlier
> to mean LilyPad - what did you intend by that - a LilyPond installer? By
> definition an app on MacOS would have GUI of some sort, so an installer
> would make sense to me (If I’ve now got it correctly then  for this purpose
> I would normally use http://s.sudre.free.fr/Software/Packages/about.html <
> http://s.sudre.free.fr/Software/Packages/about.html>). If I’m not correct
> about an installer then I don’t understand what kind of app you were
> referring to when you said:
>
> > The other point that was raised in the past was packaging as a
> > LilyPond.app and a .dmg that users are more familiar with.
>

IMO, what we most want is an app bundle that can be easily relocated
anywhere and that provides all of the binaries used by LilyPond.
Frescobaldi can be pointed at that app bundle to run LilyPond.

I recognize that most apps have a GUI.  But it's not strictly necessary to
have a GUI in the app bundle, if I understand correctly.


>
>
> Packages would produce a standard Mac installer that would look familiar
> to all Mac users. There is still the issue of gatekeeper but signing and or
> notarisation can be applied to bypass/reduce this.
>
> > On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:33, Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
> >
> > Better yet: a .dmg package installing both Frescobaldi and LilyPond
> > together. The latest release of Frescobaldi is actually missing a
> > .dmg package, which is something you might want to help with ...
> > (CCing Davide about this.)
>
> I totally agree that Frescobaldi is superior and preferable to LilyPad -
> if there’s something I could do there and Davide would be interested in
> help he can let me know.
>
> The most Mac friendly/idomatic way of doing what is suggested above (and
> respecting the separation of the two projects) would probably be to have an
> installer that would have a bundled version of LilyPond and the option to
> install it or not, allowing anyone who wanted to maintain LilyPond versions
> separately free to do so.
>

In my opinion, we want to have
a) an installer for Frescobaldi that could install LilyPond if desired, and
b) an installer for LilyPond that could install Frescobaldi if desired.

The actual use case for me is to install LilyPond and Frescobaldi
separately, and to have multiple versions of LilyPond installed on my Mac,
but only a single version of Frescobaldi.



> Alex


Thanks so much for looking into this!  It would be a great contribution to
have this resolved in a good way for 64-bit Lilypond.

Carl