On 29/04/16 22:33, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> We talked about this on the RT meeting yesterday and agreed to bump
>> this to RC again. We wouldn't like to release Stretch with guile-1.8
>> just for lilypond's sake, and it is better to act now that t
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> We talked about this on the RT meeting yesterday and agreed to bump
> this to RC again. We wouldn't like to release Stretch with guile-1.8
> just for lilypond's sake, and it is better to act now that there's
> plenty of time before the freeze so
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 serious
Bug #746005 [lilypond] lilypond: please migrate to guile-2.0
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
--
746005: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746005
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 important
Bug #746005 [lilypond] lilypond: please migrate to guile-2.0
Severity set to 'important' from 'serious'
--
746005: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746005
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: severity -1 important
On Tue, 05 May 2015, Rob Browning wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>
> > At this juncture, I'm OK with expending the effort myself to keep
> > guile-1.8 working with lilypond as the sole reverse dependency if that's
> > what is required. [Unfortunately, I don't have
Don Armstrong writes:
> At this juncture, I'm OK with expending the effort myself to keep
> guile-1.8 working with lilypond as the sole reverse dependency if that's
> what is required. [Unfortunately, I don't have enough time or expertise
> to actually solve the issues with the newer versions of
On Tue, 05 May 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 29/04/15 14:29, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Upstream has been working on porting, but there are some serious
> > issues with guile 2.0 which have not yet been resolved. I agree that
> > this should be fixed before stretch, but I don't think that
On 29/04/15 14:29, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On April 29, 2015 2:52:53 AM CDT, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> wrote:
>> So guile-1.8 got into jessie just for lilypond. I'm going to remove
>> both from
>> testing now - there should be plenty of time to get lilypond ported to
>> guile-2.0
>> and back into t
On April 29, 2015 2:52:53 AM CDT, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
wrote:
>So guile-1.8 got into jessie just for lilypond. I'm going to remove
>both from
>testing now - there should be plenty of time to get lilypond ported to
>guile-2.0
>and back into testing for the Stretch release.
>
>Cheers,
>Emilio
Up
Processing control commands:
> severity -1 serious
Bug #746005 [lilypond] lilypond: please migrate to guile-2.0
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
--
746005: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746005
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
-
Don Armstrong writes:
> What are your thoughts about supporting guile 1.8 for another release?
I'd likely prefer that to dropping lilypond, so no worries. Let's see
where we end up.
If you can, keep an eye on any critical deadlines and ping me if needed
(i.e. if I need to do something to keep
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Rob Browning wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>
> > Should have guessed as much. Upstream probably just doesn't use it. Thanks!
>
> Certainly -- shout if I can help with anything else.
I finally got back into trying to make guile 2.0 work, and apparently
there are a whole hos
Don Armstrong writes:
> Should have guessed as much. Upstream probably just doesn't use it. Thanks!
Certainly -- shout if I can help with anything else.
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-1
On September 12, 2014 8:17:09 PM PDT, Rob Browning
wrote:
>Don Armstrong writes:
>
>> Currently guile-2.0-dev installs to /usr/include/guile/2.0, which
>makes
>> the migration more difficult than merely switching guile-1.8-dev for
>> guile-2.0-dev... is this the way it's going to stay?
>
>
>Woul
Don Armstrong writes:
> Currently guile-2.0-dev installs to /usr/include/guile/2.0, which makes
> the migration more difficult than merely switching guile-1.8-dev for
> guile-2.0-dev... is this the way it's going to stay?
Would "guile-config compile" help? (And there's also a "link".)
--
Rob
Currently guile-2.0-dev installs to /usr/include/guile/2.0, which makes
the migration more difficult than merely switching guile-1.8-dev for
guile-2.0-dev... is this the way it's going to stay?
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
There is no more concentrated form o
16 matches
Mail list logo
