Re: GUB

[David Kastrup]

Knut Petersen <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 10.07.2018 um 22:08 schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
>> Karlin High writes:
>>
>>>> Who is "we", "everyone", and "we", respectively, in that last sentence?
>>> I read it like this:
>>>
>>> "GUB does have some things that Guix does not have, but if [LilyPond
>>> GUB contributors] add them to Guix, [all Guix users] can enjoy and
>>> [the LilyPond community] doesn't have to maintain [the LilyPond
>>> packaging tools] alone."
>> That's more what I meant to say.  Maintaining GUB for LilyPond only
>> seems a waste of effort and does not scale.
>>
> GUB worked for a long time, but we have a) an unsolved problem
> building the pdfs of the english documentation of stable/2.20,

That sounds like more of a race condition to me, so it's likely
unrelated to GUB but may be related to building in a separate directory
or to cross-compilation.

> have b) a situation where GUB does not build lilypond master because
> of a python incompatibility and c) see that GUB needs maintenance
> because it does not work on a number of modern distributions.
>
> No matter if we will use Guix or GUB in the future, the current
> problems need to be analyzed and fixed soon. Switching to Guix
> certainly takes some time, so I really think we have to fix GUB at
> least one more time.

[LilyPond GUB contributors] sounds like there is some set of competent
people extending GUB in manners that would be better invested in Guix.
There isn't.  GUB is on life support.  We had stretches where for close
to half a year no version of LilyPond was released because we had nobody
competent enough able to bring GUB forward to newer compiler versions.

Is LilyPond the only remaining serious user of GUB?  How does
Frescobaldi do things?

-- 
David Kastrup