On 11/20/12 02:01, Robby Findler wrote:
Oh, I see.
If you really need the lists of files to be the same, it is probably best
to make both versions have the files (altho don't different architectures
have different sets of files in general?).
Probably you'll be breaking the distro if you remove
I think it is probably best to have the OpenBSD port be a faithful
match to 5.3.1. This isn't a major bug and hopefully you'll just get
the fix in 5.3.2 or whatever the next version is called in 2-3 months.
Does that sound ok to you?
Robby
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero
On 11/19/12 19:21, Robby Findler wrote:
I think it is probably best to have the OpenBSD port be a faithful
match to 5.3.1. This isn't a major bug and hopefully you'll just get
the fix in 5.3.2 or whatever the next version is called in 2-3 months.
Does that sound ok to you?
Temporally I'll
Oh, I see.
If you really need the lists of files to be the same, it is probably best
to make both versions have the files (altho don't different architectures
have different sets of files in general?).
Probably you'll be breaking the distro if you remove files.
Robby
On Monday, November 19,
I'm seeing a weird behavior of the installation of Racket 5.3.1 on
OpenBSD (I don't know if other OS are affected or not).
On amd64 Racket installs this files:
/usr/local/share/racket/doc/images/pict_168.png
/usr/local/share/racket/doc/images/pict_169.png
What are they?
Robby
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
i...@juanfra.info wrote:
I'm seeing a weird behavior of the installation of Racket 5.3.1 on OpenBSD
(I don't know if other OS are affected or not).
On amd64 Racket installs this files:
On 11/19/12 00:08, Robby Findler wrote:
What are they?
The most of the images say we claim the privilege. One is the US Congress.
Robby
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
i...@juanfra.info wrote:
I'm seeing a weird behavior of the installation of Racket 5.3.1
I have it as well. Seems to be in the git repo. Google of the phrase is
interesting as well.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
i...@juanfra.info wrote:
On 11/19/12 00:08, Robby Findler wrote:
What are they?
The most of the images say we claim the
file:///usr/local/racket/doc/images/Spatial_Transformations.html?q=Compositing
It is being generated and used as part of the standard doc.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Ray Racine ray.rac...@gmail.com wrote:
I have it as well. Seems to be in the git repo. Google of the phrase is
On 11/19/12 01:13, Robby Findler wrote:
Maybe the difference is that there is a bug on x86, then, as in my
copy of that file I see a bunch of errors in the Compositing docs.
Do you see errors in one installation and images in the other?
Yes. I see errors (red text in the web page) in both
Sounds like a bug to me, then.
Thanks!
Robby
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado
i...@juanfra.info wrote:
On 11/19/12 01:13, Robby Findler wrote:
Maybe the difference is that there is a bug on x86, then, as in my
copy of that file I see a bunch of errors in the
It's a problem with the contract boundary. The examples work fine in
Typed Racket. The problem type is this:
(: flomap-transform
(case-
(flomap Flomap-Transform - flomap)
(flomap Flomap-Transform Integer Integer Integer Integer
- flomap)))
The contract system claims that
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a problem with the contract boundary. The examples work fine in Typed
Racket. The problem type is this:
(: flomap-transform
(case-
(flomap Flomap-Transform - flomap)
(flomap Flomap-Transform Integer
13 matches
Mail list logo
