Re: GUILE 2.2 progress

[David Kastrup]

Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Samstag, den 25.01.2020, 15:26 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions on LilyPond development
>> <
>> address@hidden
>> > writes:
>> 
>> > Am Samstag, den 25.01.2020, 14:45 +0100 schrieb Thomas Morley:
>> > > Am Sa., 25. Jan. 2020 um 13:48 Uhr schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys <
>> > > address@hidden
>> > > 
>> > > > :
>> > > > [...]
>> > > > I think it is clear that we should not be targeting GUILE 2.0, but 
>> > > > GUILE 2.2.
>> > > 
>> > > I dropped any work for guile-2.0 long ago.
>> > > For me it's more the question whether we should entirely skip guile-2,
>> > > going for guile-3 directly.
>> > 
>> > My 2 cents: Guile 3.0 was only released very recently, it's not even
>> > available in rolling release distributions like Arch Linux. Most
>> > certainly it will not be part of the upcoming Ubuntu 20.04 release?
>> > Requiring Guile 2.2 would exclude (vanilla) Ubuntu 16.04 and CentOS 7
>> > which I think would be acceptable for master and future major versions
>> > of LilyPond.
>> 
>> 16.04 is all very nice, but relying on non-updated legacy systems for
>> proscribing the dependencies of a hot-of-the-presses release is not
>> providing much of value.
>
> me: "which I think would be acceptable for master and future major
> versions" ?!?

Ah, "which" is supposed to refer to "would exclude" rather than "Ubuntu
16.04 and CentOS 7".  I thought you wanted to avoid excluding the
acceptable listed versions.  I probably would have understood had you
written:

    Requiring Guile 2.2 would exclude (vanilla) Ubuntu 16.04 and CentOS
    7.  I think that should be acceptable for master and future major
    versions of LilyPond.

Sorry for the confusion.

> Also I'm not proscribing anything, it was just a list of what would be
> lost.

I now get it.

-- 
David Kastrup