Thomas Spuhler <thomas.spuh...@btspuhler.com> writes: > On Friday, July 10, 2015 01:43:22 AM David Kastrup wrote: > >> Unmodified LilyPond should not even start up due to encoding >> problems. This may depend on the actual version of GUILE 2.x >> however. > > I converted about 10 .ly files to pdf using the regression files from > the WEB site and the pdf's look > OK. > This is from a lilypond-2.19.21 build > > This is what's installed on the build box and run box > > $ rpm -qa |grep guil > lib64guilereadline18_18-2.0.9-5.mga5 > guile-2.0.9-5.mga5 > lib64guile-devel-2.0.9-5.mga5 > guile-runtime-2.0.9-5.mga5 > lib64guile2.0_22-2.0.9-5.mga5
2.0.9 is probably the last version without the encoding problems. See <URL:http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20109>. That there has been a change is not acknowledged. The suggested workaround (using binary string ports) fails through bugs of its own, see <URL:http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20302>. At any rate, there has not been any version that has made it even partway through the regression tests on my computer (several memory-management related fixes, see <URL:http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19883>, have gone in after GUILE was "upgraded" to 2.0.11). So you are likely in possession of the most-working-ever copy using GUILE 2.0. Meaning it is totally untested and unsupported, with the developers being quite unable to get as far as you. And you will stop being able to get it to work once you upgrade GUILE to the "stable" 2.0.11 version. If you have serious system programmer chops at your disposal, feel free to set them on figuring out the 2.0.9/2.0.11 difference and further working on migrating LilyPond at the upstream project. But for packaging, GUILE 2.0 is definitely the wrong choice at the current point of time. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
