[bug#70065] [PATCH 4/6] gnu: chez-scheme: Update to 10.0.0.

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Am Freitag, dem 29.03.2024 um 01:18 -0400 schrieb Philip McGrath:
> * gnu/packages/patches/chez-scheme-bin-sh.patch: Refresh patch.
> * gnu/packages/patches/chez-scheme-backport-configure.patch: New
> file.
> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it.
> * gnu/packages/chez.scm (chez-scheme): Update to 10.0.0.  Inherit
> from
> 'chez-scheme-for-racket'.
Is there a good reason to do it this way?  Or could we build racket
with regular chez-scheme afterwards?

> [source]<patches>: Use "chez-scheme-backport-configure.patch".
> <snippet>: Also unbundle Zuo.
> [native-inputs, native-search-paths, outputs, arguments]
> [supported-systems]: Inherit from 'chez-scheme-for-racket'.
> [inputs]: Likewise, replacing the bootfile package and adding libx11.
> [description]: Update based on the User's Guide, release notes, man
> page, and README file.
> (chez-scheme-bootstrap-bootfiles)[supported-systems]: All systems are
> now supported.
> (chez-scheme-for-system): Deprecate it, since 'chez-scheme' now
> supports
> all systems.
> (chez-srfi, chez-web, chez-sockets, chez-matchable, chez-irregex)
> (chez-fmt, chez-mit, chez-scmutils)[native-inputs]: Use 'chez-scheme'
> instead of 'chez-scheme-for-system'.
> * gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm (emacs-geiser-chez)[inputs]: Likewise.
> 
> Change-Id: I287ff66f385f20e69c1411abcc94f19dd45870c5
I think I got pinged for this due to the emacs side, which as far as I
can see LGTM.  I haven't looked at all of the patch however, let alone
the series.

As usual for these large rackets (pun intended), I do wonder whether
it'd be possible to split the commits into more reviewable hunks.  For
instance, I don't think chez-scheme-for-system would need to be
adjusted yet – it could simply return chez-scheme and then in the next
commit be deprecated or dropped.

Cheers