Re: LilyPond 2.23.6 released

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Samstag, dem 12.02.2022 um 12:50 +0100 schrieb Thomas Morley:
> Am Di., 8. Feb. 2022 um 16:54 Uhr schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
> Discussions on LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>:
> > 
> > We are happy to announce the release of LilyPond 2.23.6. This is termed
> > a development release, but these are usually reliable. If you want to
> > use the current stable version of LilyPond, we recommend using the
> > 2.22.1 version.
> > 
> > This release also marks a transition towards Guile 2.2: The binaries
> > available from http://lilypond.org/development are built using GUB with
> > Guile 1.8, while the packages available from
> > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/releases/release%252F2.23.6-1
> > were created with the new infrastructure developed over the past
> > months, making use of Guile 2.2. We encourage testing with your scores
> > to make sure that future releases of LilyPond will continue to work for
> > you. If there are problems with the version using Guile 2.2 that cannot
> > be reproduced with the binaries using Guile 1.8, we would love to hear
> > about them as early as possible.
> > 
> > The binaries with Guile 2.2 are different in a number of ways, the two
> > major changes being:
> > 1. All binaries are 64-bit only and available for Linux, Windows (via
> > mingw), and macOS. In particular, this finally means official binaries
> > that work on macOS >= 10.15, which cannot run 32-bit programs anymore.
> > 2. There is no installation, simply extract the downloaded tar or zip
> > (for Windows) archive and run it. The binaries don't include a GUI
> > anymore, we recommend using third-party editors such as Frescobaldi.
> 
> Hi Jonas,
> 
> I tested 2.23.6 from various sources wrt time, always doing
> time lilyversion-to-test file.ly
> The results (I post always the second run):
> 
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> %% repository
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> 
> self-compiled lilypond-git
> out of
> 9e8645564f (HEAD, tag: release/2.23.6-1) Release: bump Welcome versions.
> with guile-2.2.7
> 
> real    0m47,518s
> user    0m47,007s
> sys    0m1,145s
> 
> after GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=1
> 
> real    0m31,956s
> user    0m31,420s
> sys    0m0,868s
> 
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> %% GitLab-archive
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> 
> lilypond-2.23.6
> from
> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/releases/release%252F2.23.6-1
> (with guile-2.2.7)
> 
> real    0m42,682s
> user    0m42,008s
> sys    0m0,900s
> 
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> %% installer
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> 
> lilypond-2.23.6
> from
> http://lilypond.org/development
> (with guile-1.8.8)
> 
> real    0m32,733s
> user    0m31,364s
> sys    0m1,337s
> 
> Obviously the version from GitLab is significantly slower than the
> self-compiled version with compiled guile-code.
> No clue why.

Because it doesn't have compiled bytecode for LilyPond's scm files. So
to turn this into a positive statement: It's nice that the static build
is a bit faster than dynamic linking and already closes the performance
gap, making it actually possible to beat Guile 1.8 in the future.


> Apart from that, the version via installer does (and always did):
> "A script in /home/hermann/bin will be created as a shortcut."
> With the GitLab-archive I have to care myself. Not a big deal, a
> little inconvenient, though.
> Any chance to have such a script autogenerated again?

Preferably not because we don't need it anymore (the message from the
previous installer is actually a lie, the script is a requirement and
not a shortcut because it sets needed environment variables). Either
add the full bin/ directory to your $PATH, or just link ~/bin/lilypond
to the lilypond binary in bin/ of the extracted archive.

Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part