Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:33 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> I prefer pushing out 2.21.0 right after 2.20.0. It's been too long in >> the making by far already. And while the 2.20 release is not quite >> within the time frame I aimed for a week ago (contact me for details), I >> don't expect the additional delay to be able to push 2.20 beyond >> February. >> >> > If we get lucky, we never have to produce a 2.20.1. If we do, we might >> > have to backport the py3 patch. >> >> 2.20 is in maintenance mode for as long as 2.22 is not out yet. >> Considering the amount of stuff stacking up on the 2.22 slate right now >> regarding platform support alone, that is likely going to be a while. >> >> I don't think that Python3 will port to PowerPC, so a backport of >> Py3-only code would entail cutting its support in the middle of the 2.20 >> lifetime. To be honest, I already had suggested cutting it before 2.20 >> but was met with resistance. > > OK. So what is your proposal for how to proceed with Jonas' patch?
Different possibilities. Probably easiest is to have different GUB setups for LilyPond-2.20 and LilyPond-2.22. Then we can stick with Python2 (and PowerPC installers, yuch) for as long as 2.20 is a thing but move on otherwise. 2.20 should be out soonish, and we definitely don't want to have that patch gather bitrot. -- David Kastrup
