On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 16:01 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > 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). So you're saying that what I should have done was upload it as lilypond-2.8. I'll make a note to do that from now on. I'm quite surprised, however, because this seems like exactly the wrong strategy. But if we are going to apply rules in an unthinking manner, I guess it's what the release policy wants. Or, instead of treating rules as if they were somehow magical wonders which descended from on high, how about addressing the root situation, and not whether it complies with this or that rule? Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part