Windows build, QT required for 2.1 vs 3.0
I wanted to build Musescore on windows to attempt some changes, but am struggling.
I followed the compile instructions, which call for QT 5.8, and then pulled the latest source and it built. But it built 3.0, which I don't think is ready enough for use.
So I checked out 2.1 and built, and have been trying combinations for a couple hours, and I think it just doesn't work. With Build WebKit selected, it fails because 5.8 doesn't have QWebView (it's no longer supported). With Build Webkit not selected it fails missing MyNetworkAccessManager which is related to not compiling with Webkit (I can't quite see how startcenter can ever build without the pragma set for QWebKit).
Does this mean that 2.1 requires 5.6 but not later, which had QWebKit?
Most writeups I see talk about "5.6 or later". But maybe later won't work?
Comments
I'm not an active Musescore developer, but 2.0.3 wouldn't build for me with Qt 5.8 either regarding QWebKit. It may be worth attempting a multi-version setup of Qt on your system if you want to compile the previous versions. This might be helpful: https://doc.qt.io/qtcreator/creator-project-qmake.html. Otherwise, hopefully an active developer will respond to your post. Maybe see it as an opportunity for an attempted conversion from the QWebKit code to QWebEngine (assuming it's possible) with the aid of the online Qt documentation as practice for sharpening some skillz . . .
MuseScore 2.x requires Qt 5.4, master needs 5.8, as stated on https://musescore.org/en/developers-handbook/compilation/compile-instru…
In reply to MuseScore 2.x requires Qt by Jojo-Schmitz
You are exactly correct, and I somehow went right past that. I think the problem is I originally built it on Linux, but was building it for different reasons. The linux pages (specifically https://musescore.org/en/developers-handbook/compilation/compile-instru…) read a bit differently, emphasizing a need for either 5.6 or 5.8, but doesn't speak to which version of Musescore.
Mea culpa. Thank you for the quick response.
In reply to MuseScore 2.x requires Qt by Jojo-Schmitz
I just managed a successful compile of 2.1 against 5.4, and it even runs. So now I have something to try to change and see how badly I can break it. :)
Thank you again for helping me read what was so clearly written. :(
To further clarify; 3.0/master is indeed not ready for everyday use; lots and lots of incompatible changes going on there, because the layouting has been redesigned from the ground up.
If your only goal is to start using 2.1, you can just download a pre-built version for your operating system at https://musescore.org/en/download#Nightly-versions. Make sure you are actually downloading 2.1 then and not master.
About versions: what Jojo said.
In reply to To further clarify; by jeetee
Thanks, I have run both nightlies, and understand that difference; I am trying to build so I can change the tool's midi output to test an idea.
That does beg a question however -- when 3.0 is "done", will the 2.1 created files format approximately the same? Right now the slurs in particular go from being over or under a couple notes to running clear across the page. I assume that's just bugs being worked.
In reply to Thanks, I have run both by Ferguson
3.0 is intended to have greatly improved formatting, in particular automatic resolution of some conflicts (overlapping elements, etc). So for example, slurs in 2.1 will happily cross notes, but 3.0 has code to automatically modify slurs to avoid notes. Everything in 3.0 is of course a work in progress. Way to early to say, but my guess would be, slurs that are left in their default state in 2.1 will be able to take advantage of the improvements, slurs that were manually adjusted in 2.1 would hopefully keep their same shape in 3.0. Realistically, though, I could easily imagine manually adjusted slurs just looking bad when loaded into 2.1 as the adjustments might be calculated relative to the new defaults, so we might just throw away the manual adjustments and trust the new defaults to eliminate the need for the manual adjustment. That's more or less what we did with a bunch of things that were improved from 1.3 to 2.0.
In reply to 3.0 is intended to have by Marc Sabatella
Good to know, thanks. I just remembered, manually added pendal marks also become a mess, even converting types (e.g. square vs slanted ends). But I will just ignore and cross fingers and assume some magic will happen prior to a usable 3.0.
In reply to Good to know, thanks. I just by Ferguson
Well, better to actually file bug reports to the issue tracker.
In reply to Well, better to actually file by Marc Sabatella
But is it premature to do so? I'm happy to do so if it is useful, but I expected the reaction to be "of course, fool, it's still being written". :)
In reply to But is it premature to do so? by Ferguson
Good question. Doesn't really hurt, but if you are concerned you'd spend too much time on this, maybe wait a while - like after the release of 2.1 at least - for more active work to resume on 3.0. Anyhow, beats just "cross fingers and assume some magic will happen" :-).
In reply to Good question. Doesn't by Marc Sabatella
Fair enough; I was more concerned with wasting people's time still trying to write the pre-alpha version. When I get a bit further will condense my example into a small version (and non-copyrighted) that I can then post in the issues.
Thanks.