GNU bug report logs - #53878
[PATCH 00/11] Update Racket to 8.4. Adjust Chez Scheme

Previous Next

Full log

Message #102 received at 53878 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philip McGrath <philip <at> philipmcgrath.com>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>,
 53878 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] gnu: racket: Update to 8.4.
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:16:33 -0500

Hi,

On 2/14/22 10:28, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Am Sonntag, dem 13.02.2022 um 16:51 -0500 schrieb Philip McGrath:
>> * gnu/packages/patches/racket-gui-tethered-launcher-backport.patch,
>> gnu/packages/patcheches/racket-srfi-fsdg-backport.patch: New patches.
>> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add them.
>> * gnu/packages/chez-and-racket-bootstrap.scm (racket-vm-for-system):
>> New procedure.
>> * gnu/packages/racket.scm (racket-minimal, racket): Update to 8.4.
>> Rewrite to use 'racket-vm-for-system', label-less inputs, G-
>> expressions, and Git origins for main-distribution packages.
> Separate into multiple patches.
> 
>>   .../patches/racket-srfi-fsdg-backport.patch   | 41622 ++++++++++++++++
> No.
> Patches should be small, not include a bunch of irrelevant doc changes.

The FSDG fix has now been applied upstream, so I can now just point at 
the right Git commit.

Other than that, I don't know how this could reasonably be split into 
multiple patches. I deleted the vast majority of 
"gnu/packages/racket.scm" and rewrote it. Most of the work done by the 
old version was bootstrapping, which is now handled by the racket-vm-* 
packages: keeping "gnu/packages/racket.scm" nearly unchanged until this 
point basically was my attempt at making these changes more granularly, 
Even the switch to use Git origins for main-distribution packages rather 
than carving them out of the built tarball (which was always an ugly 
hack) would not be trivial to move to a separate patch. The new 
"racket-gui-tethered-launcher-backport.patch" (without which the 
'racket' package would be broken) would have to be manually edited to 
apply to the built tarball---the built tarball is really not the 
preferred form for modifications by a long shot---and newly added 
packages for the new expeditor and the redesigned syntax highlighting 
and indentation libraries would need to be added to the old listing, 
only to be immediately removed.

-Philip

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.