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. > > 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. > > 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. 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. So the only question now is whether it will be allowed in before freeze. I hope so! Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part