Re: Bug#746005: guile-2.0 migration

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

On 29/04/16 22:33, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> We talked about this on the RT meeting yesterday and agreed to bump
>> this to RC again. We wouldn't like to release Stretch with guile-1.8
>> just for lilypond's sake, and it is better to act now that there's
>> plenty of time before the freeze so that a new version can be uploaded
>> (possibly to experimental for the time being) and fixes can be
>> applied.
> 
> OK. Basically, there's no way that 2.18 will be fixed to work with Guile
> 2.0, but assuming that 2.20 gets released before stretch, this will be
> workable.
> 
>> We can discuss this again later in the cycle if necessary, though
>> hopefully lilypond can get in shape and we won't need to do that :)
> 
> Well, the shape that will be required is the release of a stable
> lilypond release which supports guile. Hopefully soon.
> 
>> There have been plenty of 'unstable' releases (last one was 2.19.40
>> just a few days ago) and those have a --with-guile2 configure switch.
>> It may be a good idea to upload that to experimental with guile 2.0
>> support?
> 
> Sure, but this won't fix the version of lilypond in unstable. [I at
> least do not have the time to support a development release of lilypond
> through the lifetime of a stable release.]

Yeah, but at least people can try it and report bugs. Uploading to experimental
means we don't release with a development version.

> Are auto-removals from testing currently off? [Basically, I'd like to
> avoid having lilypond removed from testing until we're closer to the
> release if that's at all possible.]

No, they are enabled.

Cheers,
Emilio

Re: Bug#746005: guile-2.0 migration

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> We talked about this on the RT meeting yesterday and agreed to bump
> this to RC again. We wouldn't like to release Stretch with guile-1.8
> just for lilypond's sake, and it is better to act now that there's
> plenty of time before the freeze so that a new version can be uploaded
> (possibly to experimental for the time being) and fixes can be
> applied.

OK. Basically, there's no way that 2.18 will be fixed to work with Guile
2.0, but assuming that 2.20 gets released before stretch, this will be
workable.

> We can discuss this again later in the cycle if necessary, though
> hopefully lilypond can get in shape and we won't need to do that :)

Well, the shape that will be required is the release of a stable
lilypond release which supports guile. Hopefully soon.

> There have been plenty of 'unstable' releases (last one was 2.19.40
> just a few days ago) and those have a --with-guile2 configure switch.
> It may be a good idea to upload that to experimental with guile 2.0
> support?

Sure, but this won't fix the version of lilypond in unstable. [I at
least do not have the time to support a development release of lilypond
through the lifetime of a stable release.]

Are auto-removals from testing currently off? [Basically, I'd like to
avoid having lilypond removed from testing until we're closer to the
release if that's at all possible.]

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless. 
 -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Re: Bug#746005: guile-2.0 migration

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: severity -1 serious

Hi,

We talked about this on the RT meeting yesterday and agreed to bump this to RC
again. We wouldn't like to release Stretch with guile-1.8 just for lilypond's
sake, and it is better to act now that there's plenty of time before the freeze
so that a new version can be uploaded (possibly to experimental for the time
being) and fixes can be applied.

We can discuss this again later in the cycle if necessary, though hopefully
lilypond can get in shape and we won't need to do that :)

On 09/12/15 21:02, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 06/05/15 16:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> Control: severity -1 important
>>>
>>> On Tue, 05 May 2015, Rob Browning wrote:
 Don Armstrong  writes:

> At this juncture, I'm OK with expending the effort myself to keep
> guile-1.8 working with lilypond as the sole reverse dependency if that's
> what is required. [Unfortunately, I don't have enough time or expertise
> to actually solve the issues with the newer versions of guile, though.]

 For the record, I'm fine with letting 1.8 stay for now.  I imagine Don
 and I can handle any serious problems, and hopefully we won't need it
 too much longer.
>>>
>>> Thanks. I'm going to downgrade this for the time being. I'm going to try
>>> to keep on top of this as the development of squeeze progresses; feel
>>> free to re-ping whenever.
>>
>> Squeeze? Did you mean Stretch? :)
> 
> Yes, sorry.
> 
>> How is this looking? I saw some commits on the upstream git repo
>> mentioning guile 2.0. If you're unsure about this, maybe we could have
>> the unstable 2.19.x series uploaded to experimental, built against
>> guile-2.0, to make some progress, get some feedback, etc?
> 
> I haven't re-pinged them recently, but they were making some progress
> last time I checked.
> 
> Rebuilding for experimental makes some sense to keep on top of this,
> though as I remember, it built, but then didn't always work properly.
> 
> [I'm running chronically short on time though, so I've sort of just been
> letting this sit until a new release comes out.]

There have been plenty of 'unstable' releases (last one was 2.19.40 just a few
days ago) and those have a --with-guile2 configure switch. It may be a good idea
to upload that to experimental with guile 2.0 support?

Cheers,
Emilio