Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2020, 16:25 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > 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.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2020-01/msg00041.html -> I'd propose to just create a branch for GUB from the current commit. Jonas > 2.20 should be out soonish, and we definitely > don't want to have that patch gather bitrot. P.S.: Can't decide on a comment for this one
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
