Pavel Roskin <pro...@gnu.org> writes: >> As a sort of emergency measure, I would consider it sensible if we >> did a source-only release of 2.14.3 or, if you want to, 2.14.2a, the >> same as 2.14.2 plus cherry-picked compilation fixes. Namely just >> what it takes to get 2.14.2 through the current compilers. > > Let's not play games with the version numbers. 2.14.3 is what it > should be. > > I believe there was a case when a GNU package was released with > packaging problems (missing files or something). Then the fixed > package was released with a letter "a" attached.
No. It was Emacs, and a security problem in the movemail program (not the Emacs executable itself). > But this would be a real maintenance release, so an incremented number > would be appropriate. The version number decision is not all that important. I wanted to reflect that no new GUB-built binaries will be required, and confine the fixes to those that meet that criterion. > Please also consider including issue 2030, later re-reported as 2562. > The fix is a straightforward backport. Perhaps there are more issues > of that kind. We could include a couple of fixes. For a source-only release, we are strictly restricted to problems occuring only with newer compiler versions. Other fixes would require a full rerelease including binaries. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
