2016-11-23 9:34 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Antonio Ospite <a...@ao2.it> writes: > >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100 >> Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [...] >>> Hi Antonio, >>> >>> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8 >>> and guile 2.0.13: >>> >>> For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master, >>> then I did 'make test-baseline'. >>> Then I copied the entire folder 'lilypond-git/build/input' elsewhere. >>> >>> As second step I got guile 2.0.13 back >>> (Which is pretty tedious, because it's not in the distro, even not for >>> Ubuntu 16.10, if I'm not mistaken.) > > Isn't 2.0.12 sufficient?
I _think_ 2.10.12 would be sufficient. But I read this correctly: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/guile-2.0 then there's no guile 2.10.12 in Ubuntu and 2.0.11 does _not_ work. Which leads me to the question, how we should proceed, if we really manage to get 2.0.12/13 working sufficiently? I imagine a plethora of users not having 2.0.12 and no reasonable chance for average users to get it. > >>> Did a build with your _previous_ patches. (Your mail with the new >>> patch-set came in while it was running already.) >>> Copied 'lilypond-git/build/input' back into the new build. >>> And did 'make check' >>> >>> This is pretty tedious as well. Anyone with a better suggestion? >>> >> >> You could install debian stable in a virtual machine. >> >> Or for a more lightweight approach you can create a debian stable tree >> using debootstrap and run a shell from it in a container with >> systemd-nspawn, this is what I did for my quick tests with guile-1.8. >> >> The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in >> that case a debian unstable container is to be used. >> >> I can elaborate more if there is interest. > > The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base lilydev > on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu. > There is a bit of impetus for getting a hold of the Guile-2.0 issue and > I find that expanding the base of people willing to dig into matters > would be a useful thing. Yep > It might also improve chances of getting > actual Guile developers touching our problem spaces. > > Having the kind of work Thomas invests here be doable with straight > lilydev could draw some more participation. > > And it's very likely to be an area of the "the last 10% take 90% of > fiddling" kind where "it almost works" is a good incentive for further > diggers. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
