Re: confusion

[Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@ens-lyon.org>]

On Fri, Dec  1, 2006 at 10:58:27 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> Why is it OK for guile-1.8 to support 32-bit archs and not 64-bit archs,
> but lilypond is required to support all of them?  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 on all of them.
> 
Because lilypond used to support 64bit archs, so if it doesn't any more
it's an RC bug.  guile-1.8, OTOH, never supported these archs, which
means that adding that support is not RC (it's not a regression).

> Moreover, the stable update policy allows adding new archs for packages
> that were not originally in the release for all of them, so if
> lilypond-2.8 is hinted into testing, with the 64-bit archs holding an
> old version or no version, this situation can be repaired through the
> normal stable update process.

Why do you think that support for 64bit archs can be added without
source changes (in any package)?  If that was the case, then surely
guile-1.8 would build on amd64 right now?

The stable update policy allows adding binaries for some archs to get
them in sync with the source version and other archs, it doesn't allow
arbitrary source changes just because it makes the package build on new
archs.

Cheers,
Julien