Re: LilyPond 64-bit version for a Mac

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> Our current build system doesn't use the Apple SDK; instead it uses a
> Darwin SDK which was created for use with open-source software.

Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking.  Our current build system uses
a version of the Apple SDK that is so old that we are unable to verify
which license it has been distributed under.  Its legal state is
"inconclusive" which does not mean that moving to "definitely illegal"
is warranted just because we are currently at state "possibly illegal".
Moving to a Darwin SDK would likely entail at least giving up some font
support and the inclusion of some basic editing environment (that
nobody™ really™ uses anyway).

> Darwin is not currently under development; the replacement for Darwin
> does not yet have an SDK (and may not be able to get one, because of
> Apple's prohibition on reverse-engineering the SDK.

That's mischaracterizing Darwin and our relation with it.  Darwin is a
BSD-UNIX based component of MacOSX.  As such, it is being actively
maintained and developed by Apple.  The license BSD UNIX is under
implies that Apple may make their fork proprietary if they so desire.
They have chosen to instead release it, BSD licensed, as "Open Source".
This was the basis for OpenDarwin, a third-party project trying to build
an open system on top of Darwin (which does not include the graphical
components and several other parts of MacOSX but should work reasonably
for providing command-line programs like LilyPond).  OpenDarwin finally
closed shop because Apple was constantly breaking their promise of
timely Open Source releases of Darwin which meant, among other things,
that OpenDarwin could not be made to run on contemporary Apple hardware.

I don't know by how much Apple's Darwin releases are dragging feet by
now (and whether that even matters for our purposes), what SDK would
possibly be available under conditions compatible with LilyPond and GUB.

In an alternate more desirable history, we'd have used OpenDarwin
resources so far for preparing our releases.  As it stands, we are using
an old MacOS SDK with unclear licensing conditions.

> I don't know if anybody has tried building 64-bit executables in GUB
> using the current Darwin SDK.  If that works, we'd have a regular
> build.  But I don't think that's a feasible path forward long-term.

I think it would be feasible and likely the best way forward but there
is no "current Darwin SDK" in use and I don't know what the current
status of such SDKs would be.

-- 
David Kastrup