[racket-dev] [racket] Build issues under Linux (was: Racket v5.0.1)

Yeah, I think I would too.

Robby

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> I'd go with 1.
>
> At Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:38:01 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Nikita Zuev <nikitazu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at ...> writes:
>> > ...
>> >> > make[6]: ../../../racket/gc/../../utils/nicear: Command not found
>>
>> Are we planning to release a new version of the source distribution to
>> fix the bugs that have been reported?  From discussion with Eli on
>> IRC, it seems we have the following options:
>>
>> 1. Update the source distribution for 5.0.1, but change nothing else.
>> Pros: easy to do, few opportunities for new bugs
>> Cons: mirror sites would be unlikely to update, especially those that
>> are unofficial
>>
>> 2. Create a new release, 5.0.2, using the 5.0.1 tag.
>> Pros: few opportunities for new bugs, mirror sites would update, new
>> tests not required
>> Cons: more work for release managers, have to explain need for new release
>>
>> 3. Create a new release right now, from the current git master
>> Pros: The new release has a couple new features
>> Cons: lots more work for everyone
>>
>> 4. Do nothing, wait till October.
>> Pros: Easy for us.
>> Cons: Our project looks terrible for distributing trivially broken
>> software that we know about for two months.
>>
>> I don't think that 4 is a reasonable option - right now our project
>> looks unserious to anyone who downloads the source distribution.
>> We've already gotten multiple bug reports and I've seen people mention
>> this problem on IRC.  The most likely result is that people give up on
>> Racket and never tell us about it.
>>
>> Thoughts? I'd be happy to help out in order to make this happen.
>> --
>> sam th
>> samth at ccs.neu.edu
>
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>