lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Roadblock MacOSX 10.4 for release of LilyPond 2.16


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Roadblock MacOSX 10.4 for release of LilyPond 2.16
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:00:57 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux)

James Worlton <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:05 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Tim McNamara <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Eventually legacy system support gets broken in every project.
>>> PPC-based Mac users (of which I am one, we have three PPC based Macs
>>> that continue to run fine) mostly can update to 10.5.
>>
>> How expensive is that step?  If the sum is nontrivial, I'd rather see it
>> in my pocket than Apple's if that is an option (of course, the typical
>> user considers paying a proprietary vendor a normal operating expense,
>> and paying a free software developer an insolence, so it is not likely
>> that I'd be able to divert that sum even if I were able to come up with
>> a helpful course of action in this or similar cases).
>
> Quick search shows 10.5 for between $200-300. Definite ouch,
> especially for a dead-end OS, IMO.

Sure.  I am copying this to someone involved with MacOSX.  Perhaps he
has an idea, or an estimate about how much work 10.4 compatibility would
be and what it would involve.

If he or someone else volunteers for doing this, I strongly suggest
doing a collection among those who claim to profit from such a step.

Issue would be
<URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2271>.

> I can understand the need for casting off obsolete systems from the
> project. When I opened this issue, I had hoped for a trivial problem
> with the newest dev. version, but it appears that that is not the
> case. I'm okay with Lily leaving 10.4 behind. I'll just have to change
> how (& where) I work.
>
> So, as one of the (few, to be sure) 10.4 users, I say don't hold up
> the 2.16 timeline on my account.

-- 
David Kastrup



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]