without looking into this at all, there are a few remarks i could make for any project which publishes versioned release tarballs, the VCS should be of no interest to any user - generally, the VCS code is of interest, only to those wishing to contribute to the code-base itself - so, when reporting bugs, one should always try to reproduce the bug with a versioned release
where gnu-smalltalk is an exception to that general rule, is because there has not been a stable release in a long time - the GTK parts of the stable release (3.2) are broken on many distros - arch for example, packages the "alpha" release 3.2.91, which works perfectly well - that really should have become the stable release a long time ago https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/smalltalk.git/snapshot/smalltalk-3.2.91.tar.gz https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/smalltalk.git/snapshot/smalltalk-3.2.91.tar.gz.sig that tarball corresponds to 'tag' 3.2.91 of the git sources - i suggest that both of you try that version, before continuing these threads - IMHO, any bugs reported today, should be based on the 3.2.91 release actually, arch builds from commit=edb6bad6950c787f4b4c7f8ac5f7047ac1e8b984 ; but that is only because the tests in 3.2.91 fail on arch - they still refer to it as v3.2.91 one other remark is that the build recipe given does not actually install the program - you should generally run `sudo make install` instead of `make install` - some programs can run "in-tree" but other are not designed to
