Hi, On Friday, February 18, 2022 2:21:25 AM EST Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Am Donnerstag, dem 17.02.2022 um 15:50 -0500 schrieb Philip McGrath: > > [...] > > +(define-public racket-vm-cgc > > + ;; Eventually, it may make sense for some vm packages to not be > > hidden, > > + ;; but this one is especially likely to remain hidden. > > + (hidden-package > > + (package > > + (name "racket-vm-cgc") > > + (version "8.4") > > + ;; ^ Remember to also update the version of > > + ;; chez-scheme-for-racket-bootstrap-bootfiles > > + (source > > + (origin > > + (method git-fetch) > > + (uri (git-reference > > + (url "https://github.com/racket/racket") > > + (commit (string-append "v" version)))) > > + (sha256 > > + (base32 > > "1vpl66gdgc8rnldmn8rmb7ar9l057jqjvgpfn29k57i3c5skr8s6")) > > + (file-name (git-file-name "racket" version)) > > + (patches (search-patches "racket-minimal-sh-via-rktio.patch" > > > > + ;; Remove by Racket 8.5: > > [...] > > As with the Scheme bootstrap chain, if this all depends on the same > racket origin, you might want to inherit from the racket package or > just > (define %racket-version "8.4") > (define %racket-origin (origin ...)) > and use them across the packages. Making them procedures to pass > version and source to would also work imo. I think the `racket` package is emphatically not the right place to define the version and origin for Racket: I'll explain in more detail in reply to your comments on patch v2 15/15. I'm not opposed to `%racket-version` and `%racket-origin`—actually, I kind of like that approach. If we went that way, I'd suggest defining `%scheme-fork- version-number` (the version of `chez-scheme-for-racket`) in the same place, because it seems like it would be easy for someone to forget to update that at the same time. It should be an easy change, so I guess I'll send a v3 doing that after I reply to your other comments, rather than wait to debate it. -Philip