Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > 2018-07-09 23:33 GMT+02:00 Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu>: >> In May, when we were discussing the limitations of 32 bit MinGW, I >> asked Jan for an estimate of how much work it would be to add a >> 64-bt MinGW to GUB. >> >> His answer was that GUB is a hack, and that he wasn't interested in >> putting any more effort into fixing up GUB, although he would >> certainly provide me advice if I asked for it. >> >> His recommendation was to move to Guix[1], which is an existing and >> supporting package for maintaining appropriate package versions for >> a particular user. He said he would be willing to help with that, >> as it's making things better, not just spending more effort on a >> hack. >> >> Are there any opinions on whether we should pursue a move to Guix? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Carl >> >> 1. >> https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/en/html_node/Package-Management.html > > >>From a mail by Ludovic Courtès via the guile-user-list: > "The plan is for Guix to require Guile >= 2.2 sometime soon though," > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2018-07/msg00043.html > > So ...
That's not all that relevant. It's bog standard (and has been for years) for LilyPond to have all its scripts running on Guile 2.x while its internals are linked to Guile 1.8. It's just possible that the Guix developers will refuse accepting a Guile-1.8 development package on philosophical grounds. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
