Re: confusion
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 22:45 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> 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?
> You're missing that better than this is to have a version skew between
> the 32-bit archs and the 64-bit archs.
Well, no. (And that was needlessly inflammatory; please don't try to read
my mind.) I was responding to the part of your message about which you
could have done something yourself without requiring any action from the
release team. I didn't address your second proposal because I didn't have
anything coherent or researched to say about it. My guess is that the
archive software doesn't support having two different source packages with
the same name in the same release (which would be required if Lilypond is
covered by the GPL), but I don't know for sure.
>> 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?
> No, I didn't say that.
Well, that's the only scenario in which your message made sense to me,
since obviously fixing guile-1.8 is the best solution all around.
> I don't have control over guile-1.8, so I can't make any statements
> about how fast anything there will happen. However, Rob Browning did
> just upload a new version of guile-1.8 which seems to be successfully
> building on the 64-bit archs.
That's excellent. Hopefully this entire thread will be moot.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: