Re: Please test gub

[John Mandereau]

On February 11, 2019 10:27 +0100, Knut Petersen wrote:
> We definitely want a tools::python-2-7, and this does not seem to be
> too complicated. On top of gub pull requests 53-60 we could use this
> python-2-7.py in gub/specs:

Yes, building Python 2.7 for target tools is easy, the hard part of
Python upgrade in GUB is cross-compiling it.


> For python 2.4.5 we use a lot of patches, most of those do not apply
> to 2.7.15. Do we still need the logic provided by those patches in
> python 2.7.15?

Yes, a large portion of it.


>  Even if we reach a point that allows us to compile python 2.7.15 for
> all target platforms: We need people to test and debug the new
> installers.

Of course, and the hardest target is Mingw (MS-Windows).


> To me it's pretty obvious that we need to provide a working guile 1.8
> together with lilypond. But do we really need to provide python?

Yes, unless you ship binary packages without lilypond-book, convert-ly, 
midi2ly and other Python scripts, or you ask users to configure these
before usage.


> I tend to believe that the simplest, most resource-saving and most
> future-proof solution is to stop shipping python with lilypond
> installers and to simply instruct the users how to install python on
> the supported platforms.

This would make using Python scripts on some targets much harder,
especially MS Windows. Generally, shipping almost all dependencies in
precompiled binaries lowers the barrier for potential users who are not
comfortable with handling complex software dependencies.

Best
-- 
John Mandereau