Am Sonntag, dem 24.01.2021 um 17:31 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> writes: > > > Am Sonntag, dem 24.01.2021 um 16:52 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > > > Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> writes: > > > > > > > Am Sonntag, dem 24.01.2021 um 00:54 +0100 schrieb Valentin Petzel: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > Lilypond transitioned to guile 2. > > > > > > > > No, it didn't. The default and only supported version right now is > > > > Guile 1.8 and that's what is shipped in the official binary releases. > > > > If your distribution provides you with LilyPond compiled against Guile > > > > 2.2, file a bug with them (I know that at least Fedora 33 and Debian > > > > sid do at the time of writing). > > > > > > Sure about Debian sid? They used to include a private version of > > > libguile-1.8 inside. I have no idea why they would have changed that. > > > > They did for 2.22.0, see > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lilypond/-/commit/c1a0c9179857599fc495d93f6d7579b64bd127b6 > > Anybody contacted him or anyone else responsible here for saying that > this is a really, really, bad idea?
I tried to ping him on GitLab after I learned this week that Fedora did the same (now fixed for upcoming Fedora 34; the current Fedora 33 still has lilypond-2.21.6-1.fc33 built against Guile 2.2 AFAICT). Now CC'ing his email, occurred to me only now... > It is probably a result of our configuration procedure not requiring > hoops to jump through for going to Guile-2+ anymore: that spreads the > impression that this is a desirable configuration. Maybe, but a 2 second startup delay doesn't make for a good UX...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
