Hi, On 2/9/22 08:42, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Am Dienstag, dem 08.02.2022 um 10:18 -0500 schrieb Philip McGrath: > This patch does a lot and should probably be separated into several > commits. As far as the name "chez-scheme-racket-variant" is concerned, > I am not really a fan of it. How would "chez-scheme-for-racket" sound? > Thanks for taking a look! Calling it "chez-scheme-for-racket" is fine with me---it's a little shorter, at least. As far as splitting it up, yes, that makes sense. (There had at one point been some entanglements that I thought would make that difficult, but I've since fixed all those issues anyway.) What do you think of splitting it like this? >> * gnu/packages/patches/racket-enable-scheme-backport.patch: New >> patch. >> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it. >> * gnu/packages/chez-and-racket-bootstrap.scm (racket-vm-cgc): --- >> (racket-vm-bc): --- >> (racket-vm-cs): --- >> (chez-scheme-racket-variant-bootstrap-bootfiles): >> (chez-scheme-racket-variant): New variables. --- >> (chez-scheme-for-system, --- >> (chez-mit)[origin]: Add workaround for Racket variant. --- >> * gnu/packages/loko.scm (loko-scheme): Use 'chez-scheme-for-system'. >> * gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm (emacs-geiser-chez): Likewise >> * gnu/packages/chez.scm (chez-srfi): >> (chez-web): >> (chez-sockets): >> (chez-matchable): >> (chez-irregex): >> (chez-fmt): >> (chez-mit): >> (chez-scmutils): Likewise. --- >> racket-vm-for-system): New exported >> functions. Alternatively, I could see adding the snippet to "chez-mit" in the same commit as changing it to use "chez-scheme-for-system", or I could split each changed package into its own commit (though those would be extremely small), or put the definition of "chez-scheme-for-system" together with its uses, or ... Racket 8.4 was just released,[0] so I plan to send a revised series today or tomorrow. -Philip [0]: https://blog.racket-lang.org/2022/02/racket-v8-4.html