Re: OLL not working with lilypond 2.22

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

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...

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