Jonas Hahnfeld <hah...@hahnjo.de> writes: > 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...
You cannot expect distribution maintainers to actively use/test the software in question under a serious workload. -- David Kastrup
