On Monday, July 13, 2015 10:31:18 AM David Kastrup wrote: > Thomas Spuhler <[email protected]> writes: > > On Friday, July 10, 2015 02:38:14 AM David Kastrup wrote: > >> Thomas Spuhler <[email protected]> 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.
Good news, version 2.19.24 is the first one that built since vers. 2.19.21 Thanks for fixing it. -- Best regards Thomas Spuhler All of my e-mails have a valid digital signature ID 60114E63
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
