On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:04 PM Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> wrote: > > > > So far, I've only received a single (positive) response off-list and a > > > > bit of feedback on the posted patches. What do others think? > > > > To make this explicit: The proposal is to drop support for Python 2 > > > > (now EOL), requiring everyone wishing to build LilyPond 'master' to > > > > have an appropriate version of Python 3 available. This should be > > > > sufficiently easy (see above), but I'd like to have consensus on this. > > > > > > When we switch over GUB, we also need to switch over the 2.20 branch. > > > It's not just master that is affected. > > > > But we only need to switch GUB to py3 when we package 2.21 with GUB. > > We could kick this problem down the road until we really need a GUB > > build of 2.21, which may well be a few months in the future, or never > > if we decide to move to some other packaging mechanism (cf. the > > discussion of Docker/Windows) > > > > I don't think it's reasonable for us to ask Jonas to also package > > python3 for GUB as a precondition to getting his patches in. > > I'm going to start by quoting myself: > > > > > On the GUB side, I already added a spec for Python 3.7.4 (also for > > > > > Windows via binary packages) and this worked successfully in > > > > > September. > So even if you don't think it's needed, I already did. Even though I > would fully support switching away from GUB! >
Kudos for biting through GUB. > What David is concerned about (as far as I understand) is that we need > to modify the spec for LilyPond to require the new python3 package as a > dependency. This will (obviously) not work for packaging 2.20. Fair enough, but that would only be a problem if we ever have to produce a 2.20.1 . We could delay 2.21.0 for a while. If we get lucky, we never have to produce a 2.20.1. If we do, we might have to backport the py3 patch. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
