Am Samstag, dem 12.02.2022 um 12:50 +0100 schrieb Thomas Morley: > Am Di., 8. Feb. 2022 um 16:54 Uhr schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via > Discussions on LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>: > > > > We are happy to announce the release of LilyPond 2.23.6. This is termed > > a development release, but these are usually reliable. If you want to > > use the current stable version of LilyPond, we recommend using the > > 2.22.1 version. > > > > This release also marks a transition towards Guile 2.2: The binaries > > available from http://lilypond.org/development are built using GUB with > > Guile 1.8, while the packages available from > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/releases/release%252F2.23.6-1 > > were created with the new infrastructure developed over the past > > months, making use of Guile 2.2. We encourage testing with your scores > > to make sure that future releases of LilyPond will continue to work for > > you. If there are problems with the version using Guile 2.2 that cannot > > be reproduced with the binaries using Guile 1.8, we would love to hear > > about them as early as possible. > > > > The binaries with Guile 2.2 are different in a number of ways, the two > > major changes being: > > 1. All binaries are 64-bit only and available for Linux, Windows (via > > mingw), and macOS. In particular, this finally means official binaries > > that work on macOS >= 10.15, which cannot run 32-bit programs anymore. > > 2. There is no installation, simply extract the downloaded tar or zip > > (for Windows) archive and run it. The binaries don't include a GUI > > anymore, we recommend using third-party editors such as Frescobaldi. > > Hi Jonas, > > I tested 2.23.6 from various sources wrt time, always doing > time lilyversion-to-test file.ly > The results (I post always the second run): > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > %% repository > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > self-compiled lilypond-git > out of > 9e8645564f (HEAD, tag: release/2.23.6-1) Release: bump Welcome versions. > with guile-2.2.7 > > real 0m47,518s > user 0m47,007s > sys 0m1,145s > > after GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=1 > > real 0m31,956s > user 0m31,420s > sys 0m0,868s > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > %% GitLab-archive > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > lilypond-2.23.6 > from > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/releases/release%252F2.23.6-1 > (with guile-2.2.7) > > real 0m42,682s > user 0m42,008s > sys 0m0,900s > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > %% installer > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > lilypond-2.23.6 > from > http://lilypond.org/development > (with guile-1.8.8) > > real 0m32,733s > user 0m31,364s > sys 0m1,337s > > Obviously the version from GitLab is significantly slower than the > self-compiled version with compiled guile-code. > No clue why.
Because it doesn't have compiled bytecode for LilyPond's scm files. So to turn this into a positive statement: It's nice that the static build is a bit faster than dynamic linking and already closes the performance gap, making it actually possible to beat Guile 1.8 in the future. > Apart from that, the version via installer does (and always did): > "A script in /home/hermann/bin will be created as a shortcut." > With the GitLab-archive I have to care myself. Not a big deal, a > little inconvenient, though. > Any chance to have such a script autogenerated again? Preferably not because we don't need it anymore (the message from the previous installer is actually a lie, the script is a requirement and not a shortcut because it sets needed environment variables). Either add the full bin/ directory to your $PATH, or just link ~/bin/lilypond to the lilypond binary in bin/ of the extracted archive. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
