Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> writes: > Hi Kei, > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 13:51:43 -0500 > Kei Kebreau <kkebr...@posteo.net> wrote: > >> Understood. Thanks to you and Ludovic for cleaning up my small mess. > > I think it's only a workaround. > > What happened to the MIT scheme C fallback? I tried to fix it for good but > then > the armhf-linux build still didn't work: >
I pull the following quote from "Stable Release 10.1" on https://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/release.html: "The portable C version is not included in this release because we were unable to get it working in time." Based on the above quote I'm assuming the C fallback is coming back, so according to Mark's evaluation I shouldn't have removed armhf-linux from the supported-systems. > If there was once a architecture-independent MIT scheme, let's use that one to > bootstrap the newer version, if possible. > It is possible. The architecture-independent version is the C-based one. I'll look into your patch and follow changes upstream to see about repairing the situation ASAP.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
