lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Next releases


From: Jean Abou Samra
Subject: Re: Next releases
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 02:17:06 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0

Le 11/01/2023 à 22:39, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development a écrit :
Hi all,

I would like to plan releasing LilyPond 2.25.1 not next weekend, but
the one after that (i.e. January 21/22), unless somebody wants to have
an unstable release this weekend?


Fine with me.


Additionally I would have liked to target the last weekend of January /
early February for a bugfix release 2.24.1. Unfortunately, I haven't
heard back from the Debian people yet. As you may remember, the timing
for the stable release was chosen to make it possible to include
LilyPond 2.24.0 in the upcoming Debian Bookworm and a user also opened
a request: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026200
However, in answering I discovered that Debian removed guile-2.2 for
the Bookworm release during November, after we had already branched.
Right now, they only have guile-3.0 which LilyPond doesn't officially
support.



Oh noooo... <facepalm>

Did anyone try to tell them that this was a bad idea? I mean, it's
true that Guile 3.0 is already three years old, but so far compiling
it for Windows requires trying branches that are kept more or less
alive by some volunteers but not integrated into the main tree, so
most people who want to write cross-platform software in Guile will
need to use Guile 2.2.



I'd find it unfortunate if the next Debian didn't include the
latest LilyPond, but I neither like bundling guile-2.2 with the
lilypond package (as they do with Guile 1.8 right now) or having a
large user base run with Guile 3.0 while we're not officially
supporting it. On the other hand, I'm also hesitant on calling it
"supported" if we're not testing this configuration in our CI...
Opinions?



We can consider it, but in my opinion, Debian should really add
back 2.2.



Still, if possible, please try to submit fixes for 2.24.1 soon to get
them tested with the next unstable release(s) 😉


OK.

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

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