Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2020, 11:54 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > Han-Wen Nienhuys < > [email protected] > > writes: > > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:33 AM David Kastrup < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Jonas Hahnfeld < > > > [email protected] > > > > writes: > > > > > > > Am Samstag, den 07.03.2020, 23:20 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: > > > > > So assuming GUILE_CONFIG is set, that should be tried in preference > > > > > to a .pc file, giving a warning (an error would be a nuisance when > > > > > trying to have a common configuration for both 2.20 and 2.21, a > > > > > consideration that will not really be relevant any more for 2.22 and > > > > > 2.23). > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following prints an error and directs the integrators into the > > > > right direction: > > > > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > > > > index 29e4e5680f..80a34f7b09 100644 > > > > --- a/configure.ac > > > > +++ b/configure.ac > > > > @@ -189,6 +189,11 @@ STEPMAKE_MSGFMT(REQUIRED) > > > > STEPMAKE_TEXMF(REQUIRED) > > > > STEPMAKE_TEXMF_DIRS(REQUIRED) > > > > > > What about "an error would be a nuisance when trying to have a common > > > configuration for both 2.20 and 2.21" was unclear?
There will never be a shared configuration for both 2.20 and 2.21: Current master requires Python 3 which 2.20 not even attempts to be compatible with. > > I don't understand this whole discussion. Who are the system > > integrators that we are doing all this work for? You yourself have > > said we'll probably never have a 2.20.1, so under what conditions is > > it useful to have shared configuration? > > This would concern things like running Patchy, and also things like > checking out pretests of stable releases for system packages. If the > spec files of the stable release fails mysteriously, most users will > give up. With the patch it doesn't fail "mysteriously" - there's a clear error saying what the tester is supposed to do. And from my understanding "unstable" releases really means that. > I cannot believe the resistance against creating a few dozen lines for > making the life for users and testers of LilyPond easier and insisting > on a configuration that will fail for everything except a single > painstakingly "correct" use that is not documented. As I wrote yesterday, the whole thing wasn't documented before. I politely ask to take a step back and try to understand the point of view shared by Werner, Han-Wen and me. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
