I can't help but comment on the irony here. Karen, the original poster,
didn't want it compiled for DOS and didn't ask about running it for DOS.
She wanted to set up a Linux box. Jude suggested compiling for DOS and I
agree, why? I'm sure an ancient version would compile, but based on the
huge amount of libraries it needs, it would be impractical to compile in DOS
if not impossible. I suppose djgpp might work and you could use DPMI (not
the same as the overlay previously mentioned) but again, why? It would be
very slow and I doubt if you could get all of the dependencies to compile
with djgpp anyway. It's already accessible in Linux, Cygwin and probably
the Mac, so it makes more practical sense to ssh to a shell account from DOS
which is what she wanted to do in the first place.
On 7/28/2015 2:32 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
OK, I understand about overlays and about swapping and accessing from
RAM. But, isn't that more than just compiling for a different OS?
Doesn't that require reconsidering how the code actually fits together
and executes? Surely you don't want to swap on each instruction.
My reaction was to the suggestion to compile Lilypond for DOS. Why is
beyond me, given how accessible Lilypond already is on the Linux
console.
The only enhancement that we don't have supported is that which comes
from an intelligent front end that helps you with the artifacts of
writing the .ly file. These are usually on screen wysiwyg scores not of
much help to a blind composer/arranger.
Whoever pointed to the emacs lilypond mode probably pointed to the best
combo, imo, for the blind user. However, it is quite possible to do the
job with vim, ed, or even nano.
So where's the benefit of trying to take Lilypond to DOS. I don't see
it, even if it were just a recompile with a modern compiler.
Janina
_______________________________________________
Blinux-list mailing list
Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list