Re: The catastrophe has arrived.

[David Kastrup]

Joseph Rushton Wakeling <address@hidden> writes:

> On 23/10/13 18:22, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Of course, this was sort of predictable.  Would we have been in time if
>> we had immediately created a backport of the configure patch and named
>> the result 2.16.3?
>
> I think it would depend on when you got it out by.  As far as I can
> tell Ubuntu just imports Lilypond direct from Debian Unstable and
> doesn't make any direct intervention in it.

But they take the source package and compile themselves.  Debian has
already taken a fixed Metapost long ago, but Ubuntu has not updated the
TeXlive binaries in spite of me reporting the problem.

> There have been a bunch of occasions in the past when Ubuntu hasn't
> picked up on an upgraded stable release of Lilypond despite it being
> available, for exactly this reason.

Well, they upgraded to latest stable alright this time, and the
packaging looks pretty convincing.  But whether or not they upgraded
LilyPond would have made no difference to the situation with the broken
fonts: it would have just been the same if they had compiled an older
version of LilyPond with that version of Metapost.

-- 
David Kastrup