Le vendredi 01 septembre 2023 à 16:07 +0200, Jonas Hahnfeld a écrit : > IIRC it was alluded to when I proposed uploading only the binaries (and > the documentation) to GitLab: the source archive is used to build for > various distributions (Linux, Homebrew, MacPorts). They all had (and > still have) the "old" link in their setups, so it was (and still is) > easier to keep uploading them there. Plus they are relatively small and > don't require that much resources, so I think the benefit of providing > the sources from the official website outweighs the extra step.
OK, that sounds reasonable. > As for the issue, I consider that somewhat of an outlier: Most users > will follow the links on the website, and everything will work for > them. A small fraction tries to find the binaries where they used to be > (and I'm surprised there are still questions about the installer > scripts...), but I find it highly unlikely that those people check the > directory with the sources, so not uploading them doesn't really change > anything for those users, does it? I think we could add a "README" or "IMPORTANT-NOTICE" file in directories like http://lilypond.org/download/binaries/documentation/, stating that new releases are on GitLab, and call the issue done. WDYT?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
