Re: OLL not working with lilypond 2.22

[David Kastrup]

Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> writes:

> Am Sonntag, dem 24.01.2021 um 17:31 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Am Sonntag, dem 24.01.2021 um 16:52 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> > > Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> writes:
>> > > 
>> > > > Am Sonntag, dem 24.01.2021 um 00:54 +0100 schrieb Valentin Petzel:
>> > > > > Hello,
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Lilypond transitioned to guile 2.
>> > > > 
>> > > > No, it didn't. The default and only supported version right now is
>> > > > Guile 1.8 and that's what is shipped in the official binary releases.
>> > > > If your distribution provides you with LilyPond compiled against Guile
>> > > > 2.2, file a bug with them (I know that at least Fedora 33 and Debian
>> > > > sid do at the time of writing).
>> > > 
>> > > Sure about Debian sid?  They used to include a private version of
>> > > libguile-1.8 inside.  I have no idea why they would have changed that.
>> > 
>> > They did for 2.22.0, see
>> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lilypond/-/commit/c1a0c9179857599fc495d93f6d7579b64bd127b6
>> 
>> Anybody contacted him or anyone else responsible here for saying that
>> this is a really, really, bad idea?
>
> I tried to ping him on GitLab after I learned this week that Fedora did
> the same (now fixed for upcoming Fedora 34; the current Fedora 33 still
> has lilypond-2.21.6-1.fc33 built against Guile 2.2 AFAICT). Now CC'ing
> his email, occurred to me only now...
>
>> It is probably a result of our configuration procedure not requiring
>> hoops to jump through for going to Guile-2+ anymore: that spreads the
>> impression that this is a desirable configuration.
>
> Maybe, but a 2 second startup delay doesn't make for a good UX...

You cannot expect distribution maintainers to actively use/test the
software in question under a serious workload.

-- 
David Kastrup