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). You have not addressed the actual point. 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. Better still would be to allow a version skew as I described, hinting lilypond 2.8 for the 32 bit archs. This involves no regressions. It is certainly not the ideal thing, but, news flash: the ideal thing is not likely to be possible. The status quo is *also* not ideal, indeed, it's *worse*. If my judgment is wrong, I would appreciate hearing why, *in this case* it is wrong, and not simply that it fails to conform with this or that rule. We have judgment and release managers so that judgment can be exercised; if all that was necessary was conformity with rigid and exceptionless rules, we wouldn't need people. So, I'm hoping that some judgment will be applied, and address the actual "what is best for the users" of this case, rather than just "what makes Thomas go away" or "what do the rules say". thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part