On 02/05/2020 09:53, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote: > The scripts and build system in 2.20 just don't work with Python 2. I > was against applying the port in the past, and I stand by that opinion. > I simply don't think it's feasible to apply the ~50 patches that were > developed against master long after stable/2.20 was branched. Thanks for giving your opinion so clearly. Each of the changes in https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commit;h=bc8a3fa7e4f12bf5ac1eb0293bfab658d52c4ae8 did look fairly trivial by itself, but the number of files touched made me very reluctant to just go about it.
> That said, the unstable series 2.21 is ready for Python 3. That's > probably the better choice, even if it hasn't seen the same amount of > testing. Yesterday I finally submitted a patch bringing print/lilypond-devel to 2.21.1. It took quite a bit of reasoning to figure out why https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a=commit;h=5a4039b700f3a7447401780c720070d14e2891bd broke everyything openlilylib (and might cause other things to break in a more subtle way.) Using development branches for stable ports is somewhat frowned upon, but would probably be tolerated as a temporary measure if justified properly. But I don't think that's the right step at the moment. > And thanks for sharing the deadline end of this year - in that > case it would be a good idea to at least get to the release candidate > stage for 2.22 by then. Probably GNU/Linux distributions will follow a > similar path after all... That would indeed resolve the whole issue. Thanks, Martin > Jonas > -- The only folks doing really interesting stuff on Windows are the DRM folks and the virus writers.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
