Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: > Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:08 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 18:14 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup: >> > > That is not as much a speed issue as an stability issue. The byte >> > > compilation caches are not robust across updates and downgrades since >> > > they are based on file names. >> > >> > ... where the path includes the version of LilyPond. Additionally, >> > Guile also checks the modification date. >> >> And the modification date is the date of unpacking on all platforms? > > For Unix, it's the timestamp when the binaries were built. For Windows, > it depends. What I was trying to say here is that a user modifying a > source .scm file will not silently get wrongly compiled byte-code.
scm files will not change as much changed by the user rather than by installation and/or a distribution installer. Those don't use version dependent directories. I think that without a working distribution strategy, it would be a mistake to release LilyPond and let packagers figure out on their own how they are going to deal with the byte compilation mess. -- David Kastrup
