2017-01-07 10:57 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: > >>> Unfortunately I ran into this very issue, changing from Debian >>> stable (in the Linux Mint Debian Edition incarnation) to vanilla >>> Debian testing. I did this because the PyQt5 packages in stable are >>> too old to run current Frescobaldi from its Git repository. Now >>> that I managed to get Frescobaldi running again I can't build >>> LilyPond anymore because in Debian testing I don't have guile 1.8 >>> anymore :-( >>> >>> For working *with* LilyPond it's not much of an issue to use the >>> releases, but I can't work *on* LilyPond right now ... >> >> Mhmm, compiling and installing guile 1.8 is not rocket science... >> Have you tried that already? >> >> Maybe we have to bite the bullet and distribute guile 1.8 together >> with lilypond. I know that this is a step into the wrong direction >> since it doesn't force the guile maintainers to improve guile 2.x so >> that lilypond can use it... > > The Guile maintainers are not interested in improving Guile 2.x so that > LilyPond can use it. > > I'm no longer involved in LilyPond management, and others aren't yet > banned from posting messages on Guile-devel, so ignoring them will take > more than semi-annual lip service in private mail to RMS without any > followup actions. > > I think it would be reasonable to figure out how to keep the Guile > developer lists regularly informed of current problems, of the > comparative performance issues, and of the necessity to revert to an > older Guile version (possibly creating a fork in order to get a few more > problems fixed) because Guile-2.x is > > a) developing in a direction making it less rather than more suited as > an extension language > b) not bothering at all about keeping their invested users on-board > > Now obviously I am not all too well-suited as a role model for > communicating with Guile upstream. I'm just not the kind of man Stephen > Turnbull is (who has more or less single-handedly deflated the animosity > towards GNU in XEmacs, while having had more than enough personal > setbacks to keep it going. And RMS has not really been the greatest > help in that endeavor). > > But either way, I don't see that the project can do without > communicating with Guile, and better than I managed doing. Even if we > end up forking Guile 1, we want to do so in a manner where incremental > improvements of Guile developers remain feasible/possible. > > -- > David Kastrup
You probably know about http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2016-11/msg00031.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2016-12/msg00041.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2017-01/msg00003.html Regarding all the bugreports I listed there (probably with impact to lilypond usinf guilev2) and the amount of replies to my posts I'm pretty much frustrated. I already had the vague thought how much work it might be to explore other scheme-dialects, adjust whole lilypond to use them and drop guile entirely. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user