Oh, I see.<div> </div><div>If you really need the lists of files to be the same, it is probably best to make both versions have the files (altho don't different architectures have different sets of files in general?).</div> <div> </div><div>Probably you'll be breaking the distro if you remove files.</div><div> </div><div>Robby On Monday, November 19, 2012, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 11/19/12 19:21, Robby Findler wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I think it is probably best to have the OpenBSD port be a faithful match to 5.3.1. This isn't a major bug and hopefully you'll just get the fix in 5.3.2 or whatever the next version is called in 2-3 months. Does that sound ok to you? </blockquote> Temporally I'll remove the files affected from the PLIST (the list of files of the package), with this I can avoid the differences between archs. When the bug is fixed, I'll decide if the patch is too invasive or not for add to the port. Obviously this bug isn't a big problem for me :) OpenBSD will release the next version at May 1 and IIRC the frozen of the CVS will occur in February. I want do racket a official package for the next release, so I need fix or at least add a note about the known bugs. <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Robby On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado <<a>iam@juanfra.info</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 11/19/12 03:40, Robby Findler wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Neil Toronto <<a>neil.toronto@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> It's a problem with the contract boundary. The examples work fine in Typed Racket. The problem type is this: (: flomap-transform (case-> (flomap Flomap-Transform -> flomap) (flomap Flomap-Transform Integer Integer Integer Integer -> flomap))) The contract system claims that `flomap-transform' breaks its own contract. This is clearly bogus, so TR must be generating the wrong contract for it. Still, I should have caught this, and I apologize. I'll do penance by... writing a bug report? Probably not enough. </blockquote> Penance is an antiquated concept. We should do away with it. :) But if you feel bad enough to make a small program that demonstrates the problem that would be a contribution to it's solution! </blockquote> Thanks for to catch the bug guys!. Please send me a mail when you fix the bug and I'll add the patches to the OpenBSD port. </blockquote></blockquote> _________________________ Racket Developers list: <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a> </blockquote></div>