Ludovic Courtès writes: Hi Ludo!
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> skribis: > >>> Should we upgrade instead? If we do, what’s the potential for breakage? >>> Should ‘mes-rb5’ be kept on an older version? >> >> We could try that, I really can't tell if upgrading to 1.1.0 creates >> a different mes binary. > > I took this route and everything went well, and we can now build > ‘bootstrap-tarballs’ on x86_64-linux. I ended up doing additional > changes: > > e2690a8eb2 gnu: mes-rb5: Remove. > da32015db0 gnu: mes-minimal-stripped: Explicitly disallow references. > 5510e1c483 gnu: mes: Remove 0.19. > 81096caf7d gnu: mes: Switch to Guile 3.0. > 114a9f1f80 gnu: mescc-tools: Update to 1.2.0. > 0b9da8b5a2 gnu: m2-planet: Update to 1.8.0. > 8b627a7701 gnu: mes-minimal: Remove unused variable. > Removing ‘mes-rb5’ was a bit disheartening but I guess it’d have to be > updated to the current tool versions. Yeah, a bit sad but OK I guess. > I removed Mes 0.19 because it failed to build with Guile 3.0 and didn’t > appear to be needed any longer. > > Let me know if you think I did anything wrong! LGTM! Greetings, Janneke -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com
