Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
Just now, Robby Findler wrote: > So, IIUC, Ryan should have used > > 5.91.0.1 > > as the version number on the release branch? Yes. (Part of this is probably the result of the poor estimate that the Emacs code does for creating the checklist template -- mostly because I originally intended that to be just a recommendation, not a determination.) -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
So, IIUC, Ryan should have used
5.91.0.1
as the version number on the release branch?
Robby
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> > > On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > > > Here's the full comment:
> > > >
> > > > The version string has one of the forms:
> > > >X.Y
> > > >X.Y.Z Z != 0
> > > >X.Y.Z.W W != 0
> > > > where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
> > > > exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that
> this is
> > > > working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version
> for
> > > > {X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
> > > > alpha release.
> > > >
> > > > Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the
> version
> > > > number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
> > > >
> > > > How about this clarification?
> > > >
> > > > ... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
> > > > omitted from the string form) ...
> > >
> > > That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the
> > > string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4.
> > >
> > > The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for
> > > the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to
> choose
> > > alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in
> the
> > > past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
> > > {X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a
> > > fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha
> > > version number be?
> >
> > I agree that "5.91" is the right alpha-version string, assuming that
> > it's intended as an "alpha" in the sense of our release rules (as
> > opposed to a "release candidate", which has a non-zero W).
>
> These two things were originally independent: the ability to specify
> alpha-ness (the second .91) and release-ness (W=0), and that was used
> by the old build script to make some decisions for what the installers
> do. Assuming that this still matters, there is a problem with using
> "5.91" for the release process -- and instead it should be "5.91.0.1"
> to make it treated as a nightly build. For example, on Windows the
> installer for a "5.91.0.1" wouldn't grab the suffix registration, but
> "5.91" would which makes it bad as something that you ask people to
> try.
>
> BTW, this is not the same meaning of "alpha" that is used in the
> release checklist -- that one has the meaning of a "release
> candidate".
>
> --
> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
> http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
> _
> Racket Developers list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> > On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > > Here's the full comment:
> > >
> > > The version string has one of the forms:
> > >X.Y
> > >X.Y.Z Z != 0
> > >X.Y.Z.W W != 0
> > > where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
> > > exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that this is
> > > working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
> > > {X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
> > > alpha release.
> > >
> > > Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the version
> > > number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
> > >
> > > How about this clarification?
> > >
> > > ... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
> > > omitted from the string form) ...
> >
> > That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the
> > string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4.
> >
> > The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for
> > the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to choose
> > alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in the
> > past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
> > {X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a
> > fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha
> > version number be?
>
> I agree that "5.91" is the right alpha-version string, assuming that
> it's intended as an "alpha" in the sense of our release rules (as
> opposed to a "release candidate", which has a non-zero W).
These two things were originally independent: the ability to specify
alpha-ness (the second .91) and release-ness (W=0), and that was used
by the old build script to make some decisions for what the installers
do. Assuming that this still matters, there is a problem with using
"5.91" for the release process -- and instead it should be "5.91.0.1"
to make it treated as a nightly build. For example, on Windows the
installer for a "5.91.0.1" wouldn't grab the suffix registration, but
"5.91" would which makes it bad as something that you ask people to
try.
BTW, this is not the same meaning of "alpha" that is used in the
release checklist -- that one has the meaning of a "release
candidate".
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
On 11/25/2013 10:28 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that this is
working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
{X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
alpha release.
Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the version
number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
How about this clarification?
... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
omitted from the string form) ...
That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the
string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4.
The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for
the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to choose
alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in the
past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
{X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a
fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha
version number be?
I agree that "5.91" is the right alpha-version string, assuming that
it's intended as an "alpha" in the sense of our release rules (as
opposed to a "release candidate", which has a non-zero W).
The problem with the release branch currently is that "5.91.0.0" is
not a valid version string, and so
#define MZSCHEME_VERSION "5.91.0.0"
creates trouble, right?
OH! I didn't realize that was the problem, because I knew not to do
that, but apparently I did it anyway. Sorry about that. I just pushed a fix.
Ryan
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:56:45 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > Here's the full comment:
> >
> > The version string has one of the forms:
> >X.Y
> >X.Y.Z Z != 0
> >X.Y.Z.W W != 0
> > where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
> > exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that this is
> > working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
> > {X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
> > alpha release.
> >
> > Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the version
> > number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
> >
> > How about this clarification?
> >
> > ... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
> > omitted from the string form) ...
>
> That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the
> string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4.
>
> The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for
> the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to choose
> alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in the
> past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
> {X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a
> fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha
> version number be?
I agree that "5.91" is the right alpha-version string, assuming that
it's intended as an "alpha" in the sense of our release rules (as
opposed to a "release candidate", which has a non-zero W).
The problem with the release branch currently is that "5.91.0.0" is
not a valid version string, and so
#define MZSCHEME_VERSION "5.91.0.0"
creates trouble, right?
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
On 11/25/2013 09:44 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that this is
working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
{X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
alpha release.
Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the version
number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
How about this clarification?
... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
omitted from the string form) ...
That's not the part that needs clarifying. I think that fact that the
string form drops final zeros is clear from lines 2-4.
The part that needs clarifying is how to choose the version number for
the alpha releases leading up to version {X+1}.0. (Really, how to choose
alpha version numbers in general, since I've had similar problems in the
past.) From this statement, "X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
{X+1}.0" (Y>=90 already stated), I would expect that 5.91 would be a
fine alpha version number for 6.0. Is it? If not, what should the alpha
version number be?
Ryan
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
Here's the full comment:
The version string has one of the forms:
X.Y
X.Y.Z Z != 0
X.Y.Z.W W != 0
where each X, Y, Z, W is a non-negative exact integer, Y must not
exceed 99, and Z or W must not exceed 999. Y>=90 means that this is
working towards {X+1}.0, and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for
{X+1}.0; Z>=900 means working towards X.{Y+1}, and X.Y.Z as an
alpha release.
Then intent is that when Z and W are 0, the string form of the version
number is just X.Y, not X.Y.Z.W.
How about this clarification?
... and X.Y (i.e., Z=0 and W=0, so Z and W are
omitted from the string form) ...
At Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:35:02 -0500, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
> I was going by the comment at the top of
> /racket/src/racket/src/schvers.h, which says
>
>X.Y.Z.W
>...
>Y>=90 means that this is working towards {X+1}.0,
>and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for {X+1}.0
>
> I can change the version number, but if it's causing problems, let's
> figure out the rules that we want and change the comments too.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On 11/23/2013 10:03 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
> > My reading of the code suggests the first problem is that the version
> > number should have been 5.91.0.1 not 5.91.0.0 but I can't recall what we
> > usually do to know if that's right or not. It looks like the code was
> > last changed in 2008 so I guess the version number is what's wrong.
> >
> > The second problem is that the nightly build site has been down for a
> > long time. Probably Matthew and I should switch our snapshot builds over
> > to using the release branch instead of git head.
> >
> > Robby
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Michael Sperber
> > mailto:sper...@deinprogramm.de>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ryan Culpepper mailto:ry...@ccs.neu.edu>> writes:
> > >
> > > > The release process for v6.0 has begun: the `release' branch was
> > > > created for any work that is left and is now bumped to v5.91. You
> > > > can go on using the `master' branch as usual, it is now bumped to
> > > > v6.0.0.1 (to avoid having two different trees with the same version).
> > >
> > > Right now, I get (from a fresh build, commit
> > d3665c2cdb3ee36bf723e339d887399ffd89fc01):
> > >
> > > expected: real?
> > > given: #f
> > > argument position: 1st
> > > other arguments...:
> > >0
> > > context...:
> > >
> >
> /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects
> /dynext/filename-version.rkt:14:4
> cts/dynext/filename-version.rkt:14:4>: loop
> > >
> >
> /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects
> /dynext/filename-version.rkt
> cts/dynext/filename-version.rkt>: [running body]
> > >
> >
> /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects
> /compiler/distribute.rkt
> cts/compiler/distribute.rkt>: [traversing imports]
> > >
> >
> /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-p
> kgs/drracket/drracket/private/language.rkt
> t-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/language.rkt>: [traversing imports]
> > >
> >
> /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-p
> kgs/drracket/drracket/private/link.rkt
> t-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/link.rkt>: [traversing imports]
> > >
> >
> /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-p
> kgs/drracket/drracket/tool-lib.rkt
> t-pkgs/drracket/drracket/tool-lib.rkt>: [traversing imports]
> > >
> >
> /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-p
> kgs/drracket/drracket/private/drracket-normal.rkt
> t-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/drracket-normal.rkt>: [running body]
> > >
> >
> /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-p
> kgs/drracket/drracket/drracket.rkt
> t-pkgs/drracket/drracket/drracket.rkt>: [running body]
> > >
> > > On related news, http://pre.racket-lang.org/release/ gives me a 404.
> > >
> > > Did I miss something?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Mike
> > > _
> > > Racket Developers list:
> > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
> _
> Racket Developers list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
_
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
I was going by the comment at the top of
/racket/src/racket/src/schvers.h, which says
X.Y.Z.W
...
Y>=90 means that this is working towards {X+1}.0,
and X.Y (Z=0, W=0) is an alpha version for {X+1}.0
I can change the version number, but if it's causing problems, let's
figure out the rules that we want and change the comments too.
Ryan
On 11/23/2013 10:03 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
My reading of the code suggests the first problem is that the version
number should have been 5.91.0.1 not 5.91.0.0 but I can't recall what we
usually do to know if that's right or not. It looks like the code was
last changed in 2008 so I guess the version number is what's wrong.
The second problem is that the nightly build site has been down for a
long time. Probably Matthew and I should switch our snapshot builds over
to using the release branch instead of git head.
Robby
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Michael Sperber
mailto:sper...@deinprogramm.de>> wrote:
>
>
> Ryan Culpepper mailto:ry...@ccs.neu.edu>> writes:
>
> > The release process for v6.0 has begun: the `release' branch was
> > created for any work that is left and is now bumped to v5.91. You
> > can go on using the `master' branch as usual, it is now bumped to
> > v6.0.0.1 (to avoid having two different trees with the same version).
>
> Right now, I get (from a fresh build, commit
d3665c2cdb3ee36bf723e339d887399ffd89fc01):
>
> expected: real?
> given: #f
> argument position: 1st
> other arguments...:
>0
> context...:
>
/afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/dynext/filename-version.rkt:14:4
:
loop
>
/afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/dynext/filename-version.rkt
:
[running body]
>
/afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/compiler/distribute.rkt
:
[traversing imports]
>
/afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/language.rkt
:
[traversing imports]
>
/afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/link.rkt
:
[traversing imports]
>
/afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/tool-lib.rkt
:
[traversing imports]
>
/afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/drracket-normal.rkt
:
[running body]
>
/afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/drracket.rkt
:
[running body]
>
> On related news, http://pre.racket-lang.org/release/ gives me a 404.
>
> Did I miss something?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mike
> _
> Racket Developers list:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
_
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
My reading of the code suggests the first problem is that the version number should have been 5.91.0.1 not 5.91.0.0 but I can't recall what we usually do to know if that's right or not. It looks like the code was last changed in 2008 so I guess the version number is what's wrong. The second problem is that the nightly build site has been down for a long time. Probably Matthew and I should switch our snapshot builds over to using the release branch instead of git head. Robby On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Michael Sperber wrote: > > > Ryan Culpepper writes: > > > The release process for v6.0 has begun: the `release' branch was > > created for any work that is left and is now bumped to v5.91. You > > can go on using the `master' branch as usual, it is now bumped to > > v6.0.0.1 (to avoid having two different trees with the same version). > > Right now, I get (from a fresh build, commit d3665c2cdb3ee36bf723e339d887399ffd89fc01): > > expected: real? > given: #f > argument position: 1st > other arguments...: >0 > context...: >/afs/ informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/dynext/filename-version.rkt:14:4: loop >/afs/ informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/dynext/filename-version.rkt: [running body] >/afs/ informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/compiler/distribute.rkt: [traversing imports] >/afs/ informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/language.rkt: [traversing imports] >/afs/ informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/link.rkt: [traversing imports] >/afs/ informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/tool-lib.rkt: [traversing imports] >/afs/ informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/drracket-normal.rkt: [running body] >/afs/ informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/drracket.rkt: [running body] > > On related news, http://pre.racket-lang.org/release/ gives me a 404. > > Did I miss something? > > -- > Regards, > Mike > _ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
Ryan Culpepper writes: > The release process for v6.0 has begun: the `release' branch was > created for any work that is left and is now bumped to v5.91. You > can go on using the `master' branch as usual, it is now bumped to > v6.0.0.1 (to avoid having two different trees with the same version). Right now, I get (from a fresh build, commit d3665c2cdb3ee36bf723e339d887399ffd89fc01): expected: real? given: #f argument position: 1st other arguments...: 0 context...: /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/dynext/filename-version.rkt:14:4: loop /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/dynext/filename-version.rkt: [running body] /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/racket/collects/compiler/distribute.rkt: [traversing imports] /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/language.rkt: [traversing imports] /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/link.rkt: [traversing imports] /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/tool-lib.rkt: [traversing imports] /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/private/drracket-normal.rkt: [running body] /afs/informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/home/sperber/build/plt-release/pkgs/drracket-pkgs/drracket/drracket/drracket.rkt: [running body] On related news, http://pre.racket-lang.org/release/ gives me a 404. Did I miss something? -- Regards, Mike _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
At Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:10:14 +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote: > It would be nice to change location of "config.rktd" file. > > "config.rktd" looks like it cannot be changed by user at run time in any > meaningful way. Thus it doesn't belong to sysconfdir. > It should be placed into libdir instead. It's intended to be changed by users, either directly or via tools like `raco pkg config`: http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/snapshots/current/doc/raco/config-file.html > When building Racket tries to invoke i486--netbsdelf-ar which naturally > doesn't exist. It would be nice if it used canonical archiver name first, > which is "ar" per POSIX/SUS. Alternatively it should fall back to it when > non-canonical one doesn't exist. Right --- I've pushed a repair. _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Release for v6.0 has begun
Ryan Culpepper writes: > >> NOW IS THE TIME TO FIX BUGS THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT <<< It would be nice to change location of "config.rktd" file. "config.rktd" looks like it cannot be changed by user at run time in any meaningful way. Thus it doesn't belong to sysconfdir. It should be placed into libdir instead. When building Racket tries to invoke i486--netbsdelf-ar which naturally doesn't exist. It would be nice if it used canonical archiver name first, which is "ar" per POSIX/SUS. Alternatively it should fall back to it when non-canonical one doesn't exist. patch-pkgs_drracket-pkgs_drracket-test_tests_drracket_run.sh Description: Avoid non-portable "test \=\=". -- BCE HA MOPE! _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
