Re: Source tarballs on lilypond.org

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le vendredi 01 septembre 2023 à 16:07 +0200, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit :
> IIRC it was alluded to when I proposed uploading only the binaries (and
> the documentation) to GitLab: the source archive is used to build for
> various distributions (Linux, Homebrew, MacPorts). They all had (and
> still have) the "old" link in their setups, so it was (and still is)
> easier to keep uploading them there. Plus they are relatively small and
> don't require that much resources, so I think the benefit of providing
> the sources from the official website outweighs the extra step.


OK, that sounds reasonable.


> As for the issue, I consider that somewhat of an outlier: Most users
> will follow the links on the website, and everything will work for
> them. A small fraction tries to find the binaries where they used to be
> (and I'm surprised there are still questions about the installer
> scripts...), but I find it highly unlikely that those people check the
> directory with the sources, so not uploading them doesn't really change
> anything for those users, does it?


I think we could add a "README" or "IMPORTANT-NOTICE" file in
directories like http://lilypond.org/download/binaries/documentation/,
stating that new releases are on GitLab, and call the issue done.
WDYT?

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part