Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It would be better to have a halfway modern lilypond on 32-bit archs and > nothing at all on 64-bit archs, than to have a medieval lilypond of > them.
So, if that's the case, wouldn't the next step be to file a bug with ftpmaster requesting the removal of the 64-bit builds of the old version of lilypond from testing, after which the new lilypond would propagate to testing automatically since it would no longer be breaking those architectures? Of course, if someone disagrees with you and thinks it *is* better to have an ancient version of lilypond on 64-bit hosts, they may file a bug against lilypond for not supporting them, and then I suppose there will be an argument about the severity. > Better still would be to allow a version skew as I described, hinting > lilypond 2.8 for the 32 bit archs. This involves no regressions. It is > certainly not the ideal thing, but, news flash: the ideal thing is not > likely to be possible. You don't believe it's possible to port guile to 64-bit architectures in the etch release timeframe, but the new lilypond absolutely depends on the new version of guile? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
