Re: State of LilyPond with Guile 2.2

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I had already replied that I don't like that option; it was always a
> given for me that LilyPond would move on.

Your arguments are sound, no question, ...

> Guile 2.2 also makes binary distribution much nicer (because there
> no more shared srfi libraries, so lilypond can be linked as one
> static executable) and makes it possible to offer 64 bit executables
> for Windows.

... especially to support some 64bit architectures.

> But given the reactions, I'll reduce activity on my work towards
> Guile 2.2...

Hopefully there is not a misunderstanding: I very much appreciate your
activities (and I'm quite sure that Han-Wen thinks the same) and
invaluable tests!

It is very unfortunate that more recent Guile versions cause such a
serious deterioration for LilyPond.  Maybe it makes sense for the
foreseeable future to stay with the status quo, this is, using Guile
1.8 as much as possible, and offering support for 2.x (or 3.x) for
platforms where version 1.8 can't be used.  And if we go this route it
makes sense to do what Han-Wen suggests, namely to add Guile 1.8 as a
submodule.


     Werner