Re: guile-2.0 and debian

[Thomas Morley]

2016-11-23 9:34 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Antonio Ospite <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:25:03 +0100
>> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> Hi Antonio,
>>>
>>> I figured to do a regtest-comparison between builds with guile 1.8.8
>>> and guile 2.0.13:
>>>
>>> For that I had to get back guile 1.8.8 and did a build from current master,
>>> then I did 'make test-baseline'.
>>> Then I copied the entire folder 'lilypond-git/build/input' elsewhere.
>>>
>>> As second step I got guile 2.0.13 back
>>> (Which is pretty tedious, because it's not in the distro, even not for
>>> Ubuntu 16.10, if I'm not mistaken.)
>
> Isn't 2.0.12 sufficient?

I _think_ 2.10.12 would be sufficient.
But I read this correctly:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/guile-2.0
then there's no guile 2.10.12 in Ubuntu and 2.0.11 does _not_ work.

Which leads me to the question, how we should proceed, if we really
manage to get 2.0.12/13 working sufficiently?

I imagine a plethora of users not having 2.0.12 and no reasonable
chance for average users to get it.

>
>>> Did a build with your _previous_ patches. (Your mail with the new
>>> patch-set came in while it was running already.)
>>> Copied 'lilypond-git/build/input' back into the new build.
>>> And did 'make check'
>>>
>>> This is pretty tedious as well. Anyone with a better suggestion?
>>>
>>
>> You could install debian stable in a virtual machine.
>>
>> Or for a more lightweight approach you can create a debian stable tree
>> using debootstrap and run a shell from it in a container with
>> systemd-nspawn, this is what I did for my quick tests with guile-1.8.
>>
>> The same goes for people wanting to try lilypond with guile-2.0.13, in
>> that case a debian unstable container is to be used.
>>
>> I can elaborate more if there is interest.
>
> The question is whether it would make sense to temporarily base lilydev
> on something with the necessary packages instead of vanilla Ubuntu.
> There is a bit of impetus for getting a hold of the Guile-2.0 issue and
> I find that expanding the base of people willing to dig into matters
> would be a useful thing.

Yep

> It might also improve chances of getting
> actual Guile developers touching our problem spaces.
>
> Having the kind of work Thomas invests here be doable with straight
> lilydev could draw some more participation.
>
> And it's very likely to be an area of the "the last 10% take 90% of
> fiddling" kind where "it almost works" is a good incentive for further
> diggers.


Cheers,
  Harm