Re: MacOS release help

[Luca Fascione]

I agree strongly with this, yes

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022, 18:14 Jean Abou Samra, <jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:

> Le 18/10/2022 à 08:12, Alex Harker a écrit :
> >
> >
> >> On 18 Oct 2022, at 00:05, Carl Sorensen <carl.d.sorensen@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I can’t be certain on whether the GUI is strictly necessary, because
> > I’ve never considered the alternative, but an app bundle with no GUI
> > is not something I’ve ever seen on MacOS, so I would not advise making
> > one.
> >
> > However, the notion of a MacOS package on Mac is more general than an
> > app bundle, and is simply a folder that has some metadata. The
> > contents of the folder can be whatever you want, whereas an app bundle
> > implies other things (like it will launch when double clicked and I
> > think the bundle structure is expected to follow a given pattern). If
> > what is required is just a single ’thing’ (as far as most users are
> > concerned) then a package (but not a app) might be most appropriate.
> > They can be used for anything where a bunch of structured resources
> > should be kept together (some apps use them for documents, for
> > instance, such as Logic Pro X - which allows it to keep a bunch of
> > audio files inside something that looks like a ‘file').
> >
> > The downside of the package approach would be usage entirely on the
> > command line, although the barrier may be too small to be considered
> > relevant. In the terminal packages act just folders and you can cd
> > into them. In the finder you can also look inside them, but need to
> > explicitly open them with a right-click contextual menu selection to
> > ’Show Package Contents’. Most end users are unaware of this and see
> > packages as if they were opaque files. I also don’t know how a package
> > approach would operate if someone wanted to install to usr/local or
> > similar in order to be able to run lilypond binaries without having to
> > type the full location - I can take a look at that.
>
>
>
> I am starting to think that since Frescobaldi is the most complete
> and beginner-friendly LilyPond environment out there, having a good
> installing experience for Frescobaldi and LilyPond together would make
> the installing experience for LilyPond without Frescobaldi much less
> relevant.
>
> In particular,
>
> - as I said earlier, it would be great to have a .dmg for Frescobaldi 3.2,
>
> - Frescobaldi could gain an interface for easily installing various
>    LilyPond versions, and the first launch of Frescobaldi could just
>    open this interface.
>
>    It seems that the old Frescobaldi 1 actually had this. It corresponds to
>    https://github.com/frescobaldi/frescobaldi/issues/313
>
>
> Jean
>
>
>