Thomas Spuhler <thomas.spuh...@btspuhler.com> writes:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 02:38:14 AM David Kastrup wrote:
>> Thomas Spuhler <thomas.spuh...@btspuhler.com> writes:
>> > On Friday, July 10, 2015 01:43:22 AM David Kastrup wrote:
>> >> Unmodified LilyPond should not even start up due to encoding
>> >> problems. This may depend on the actual version of GUILE 2.x
>> >> however.
>> >
>> > I converted about 10 .ly files to pdf using the regression files from
>> > the WEB site and the pdf's look
>> > OK.
>> > This is from a lilypond-2.19.21 build
>> >
>> > This is what's installed on the build box and run box
>> >
>> > $ rpm -qa |grep guil
>> > lib64guilereadline18_18-2.0.9-5.mga5
>> > guile-2.0.9-5.mga5
>> > lib64guile-devel-2.0.9-5.mga5
>> > guile-runtime-2.0.9-5.mga5
>> > lib64guile2.0_22-2.0.9-5.mga5
>>
>> But for packaging, GUILE 2.0 is definitely the wrong choice at the
>> current point of time.
>
> I am coming back to Guile-2. I upgraded to vers 2.0.11 and rebuild
> lily 2.19.21. I still cannot
> build 2.19.22. It chokes at the documentation.
That's more or less chance. Neither version will pass the regtests.
> But lilypond 2.19.21 (built with guile-2.0.11) compiles the testfile
> lily-0e752a19.ly
> looks good, no crash, nothing special
Oh good grief. Distributing some build of software on the rationale
that it happens to compile some small file without crashing is not solid
engineering.
> I am going to continue building it with guile-2.0.11 for the time
> being. It will take about 12 month until we release our new distro
> version and I can always go back to guile1.8 if we still have it by
> then.
Self-fulfilling prophesy. You won't have Guile 1.8 any more since you
did not need it for building a seriously deficient version of LilyPond
unsuitable for production use and unable to complete its regtests, and
so the only version of LilyPond you will be able to provide will be one
unsuitable for production use and unable to complete its regtests as you
won't have Guile 1.8 any more by then.
Who do you think are you doing a favor by distributing a version of
LilyPond that works only superficially?
At any rate, I refer you to the GPLv3:
[Preamble]
For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.
[...]
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
it, and giving a relevant date.
[...]
This particularly concerns the output of lilypond --version.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
