Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17

[David Kastrup]

Martin Tarenskeen <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>>>> 'Any chance 'that the forthcoming' Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in
>>>>> Fedora 17'
>>>>
>>>> Fedora 17 packages Lilypond 2.15.29 currently.
>>
>>> That sounds like imprudent policy.  Packaging an unstable version should
>>> only be done by somebody committed to tracking upstream developments
>>> well enough to quickly replace the version.
>>
>> I agree. I just reported the issue on Bugzilla.
>>
>
> And they replied:
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla <address@hidden> 2012-04-30
> 10:35:38 EDT --- Normally I'd agree, but in this case I moved to the
> unstable branch because at the time the stable branch no longer built
> on rawhide. As it is, we expect the next stable to come out prior to
> F17 GA, so I'll either get it in as an update or it will be in F17.
> We've done this in the past with things like Firefox.

Well, we've expected the next stable for months now.  If the expectation
does not turn out true, it might make sense to get a _timely_ report
about just was the problem with 2.14.  I am not particularly fond of the
message that putting out another 2.14 version sends, but it is
conceivable that a backport of code that has become problematic would
get to the finishing line earlier than 2.16 does.

Whether or not we (TM) decide to invest any amount of work into such a
backport, some feedback from downstream might help in pinpointing and
documenting the source of current problems, and thus create a bit more
of a time buffer for a qualified decision.

-- 
David Kastrup