Re: Blockers for Guile 2.2

[David Kastrup]

Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> writes:

> Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 21:08 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Am Samstag, dem 19.02.2022 um 18:14 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> > > That is not as much a speed issue as an stability issue.  The byte
>> > > compilation caches are not robust across updates and downgrades since
>> > > they are based on file names.
>> > 
>> > ... where the path includes the version of LilyPond. Additionally,
>> > Guile also checks the modification date.
>> 
>> And the modification date is the date of unpacking on all platforms?
>
> For Unix, it's the timestamp when the binaries were built. For Windows,
> it depends. What I was trying to say here is that a user modifying a
> source .scm file will not silently get wrongly compiled byte-code.

scm files will not change as much changed by the user rather than by
installation and/or a distribution installer.  Those don't use version
dependent directories.

I think that without a working distribution strategy, it would be a
mistake to release LilyPond and let packagers figure out on their own
how they are going to deal with the byte compilation mess.

-- 
David Kastrup