Re: Library versions

[Pedro Kröger]

Don Blaheta <address@hidden> writes:

> Is it possible that when configuring lilypond you don't require the
> super-duper latest version of all the libraries unless there's actually
> some feature there that you need? 

I don't think so.

> Which certainly sets an awfully high bar for contributing to the
> project, 

if your intent is to just to use lilypond, the best way is to install a
pre-compiled binary. If you intend to help the development the way to go
is to install the fresh-and-sometimes-bleeding-edge libraries and
compile from cvs.

this may seem an awful lot of work at first, but one of the things I
admire most in lily development process is the re-use of things. it's
the opposite approach of the "it's not made here" syndrome that plagues
so many projects. for instance, one project I know have sticked with a
made-in-house branch of gtk-1.0 for a long time, now they are having a
hard time to move the whole thing to gtk-2. Lilypond's development
sometimes is pushing other applications a little further (like texinfo,
etc), and this is a good thing(TM), even if take a little longer to set
up a development box.

> when you can't even get a working generated version of the _docs_
> without hacking around with installing the bleeding-edge version of
> seven different libraries.

as I said before, AFAIK texinfo did not have some things needed for a
manual like lily's. Jan invested quite a good time to add these in
texinfo. This is a good thing because texinfo is better because of that
and lily does not have to use a half cocked hack instead.

of course, the process of developers of these projects/libraries
releasing new versions and distributions using them should be
faster. That's one of the reasons I stopped using debian. this cycle is
*away* too slow!

Pedro Kröger