Re: Blockers for Guile 2.2

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Freitag, dem 25.02.2022 um 00:08 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> > > I read over this thread, but I don't understand what you mean by
> > > "downstreams" here.
> > 
> > In my understanding, it's about "downstreams" packaging LilyPond,
> > including Linux distributions and parties like HomeBrew and MacPorts.
> > But please ask Jean what exactly is required now:
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-02/msg00123.html 
> 
> GUILE_AUTO_COMPILE=1 is not just for us. The user can have it set
> in their environment as a system configuration for all software that
> happens to use Guile as well.

In my opinion, this is highly unlikely. If nothing is set, auto
compilation is the default, only LilyPond chooses to soft-default to
disable it (meaning it can be overwritten by explicitly setting the
environment variable). I would doubt that anybody except you added to
their environment by default. If they have, I maintain that it's their
problem. There are far easier ways to shoot yourself into the foot.

> > See https://gitlab.com/hahnjo/lilypond/-/commits/guile2-bytecode  Let me
> > know if this is miraculously sufficient to make people happy and I can
> > open a merge request.
> 
> I was going to write a longer reply before this came, but
> this mostly obviates it. Am I understanding it correctly that
> you can copy the bytecode from Linux binaries to cross-compiled
> MingW ones even if this is not automated for now?

That is my understanding and the claim I'm making since last year, but
I haven't tested this yet.

> If so, that clears my concerns.

Just to be sure, can you be more precise here? Does it also clear the
concerns about entirely dropping the code for Guile 1.8?

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