[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Issue 1933 in lilypond: Lilypond-book requires msvcrt again

From: lilypond
Subject: Re: Issue 1933 in lilypond: Lilypond-book requires msvcrt again
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:10:19 +0000

Comment #18 on issue 1933 by address@hidden: Lilypond-book requires msvcrt again

Second, we could always just rewrite the python scripts. And by "rewrite", I mean "add maybe 10 lines of python to use os.popen3 instead of subprocess, as discussed at the top of python/book_snippets.py".

It seems like the consensus above is that this is a bad idea. I don't have an opinion either way, but if we are to do this, we need to have patchy automatically reject all patches that add an unsupported Windows module to a Python patch.

Third, we could seriously examine Jan's patch to determine why it worked at the time, and what has changed since then.

If this took not-too-much-time I'd agree, but it does not seem that we have the developer resources or desire to go through the fix-test-fix-test cycle that's needed to fix this. And once it is fixed, we have to ask ourselves "when the same snag comes up later down the line, will the people be around who can get it fixed in a reasonable time frame."

I think that the question to ask is "will the inconvenience of asking users to download Python separately be outweighed by the gain in developer time and the diminishing of delay between stable resources?" It is true that if the answer is "yes" we will have in effect given up on having Grand Unified Binaries of python, but there is little value in having them if the distro on the Python website is easily accessible and if writing those 10 lines of Python code has now taken us since September 25.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]