Arch Linux User Repository

Sorry, I haven't used arch linux for a long time. @GunpowderGuy, You are a maintiner of the package now.

@dgeibi @taekyung @jaseemabid the package is still bugged, the checksum got wrong: https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/issues/605

Several people are reporting that the validity check fails when installing this package @dgeibi Edit: this is the problem https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/issues/605

I changed the binary name from scheme to chez.

Thanks @defty.

This is a patch to update to 9.5.6, canonicalize the license name, and install to chez and chez-script:

diff --git a/PKGBUILD b/PKGBUILD
index 0fb6596..8a7012b 100644
--- a/PKGBUILD
+++ b/PKGBUILD
@@ -2,26 +2,26 @@
 # Maintainer: Taekyung Kim <Taekyung.Kim.Maths@gmail.com>

 pkgname=chez-scheme
-pkgver=9.5.4
-pkgrel=2
+pkgver=9.5.6
+pkgrel=1
 pkgdesc="Chez Scheme is a compiler and run-time system for the language of the Revised^6 Report on Scheme (R6RS), with numerous extensions."
 arch=(i686 x86_64)
 url="https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme"
 depends=()
-license=('APL')
+license=('Apache')
 depends=('ncurses' 'libx11' 'libutil-linux')
 conflicts=('petite-chez-scheme' 'chez-scheme-git')
 replaces=('petite-chez-scheme' 'chez-scheme-git')
 source=("https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/releases/download/v$pkgver/csv$pkgver.tar.gz")
-sha1sums=('867c82cc3879e37dcb0188ef1c08915afaac42a9')
+sha256sums=('6b3d1d111c6c47a4e51b500b30f4c29efd339e414f6ace743cff6d08a0dacaae')
 _archivename=csv$pkgver

 build() {
   cd "$srcdir/${_archivename}"
-  ./configure --installprefix=/usr --temproot=$pkgdir --threads
+  ./configure --installprefix=/usr --temproot=$pkgdir --installschemename=chez --installscriptname=chez-script --threads
 }

 package() {
   cd "${srcdir}/${_archivename}"
-  make install DESTDIR="$pkgdir" InstallSchemeName=scheme
+  make install DESTDIR="$pkgdir"
 }

Related update: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/idris2/#comment-826542

Chez is not "standard" scheme, and there will never be one. Users should specify the scheme based on their choice.

@joshu, apologies, it seems the change you proposed in your original comment is "more correct" from looking into other Scheme implementations (ypsilon-scheme is invoked as ypsilon, scm-scheme as scm, chibi-scheme as chibi, etc.). So invoking chez-scheme as chez or chez-scheme would seemingly be more consistent with other implementations. Unfortunately, Idris2 seems to rely on chez-scheme being called scheme beyond what is configurable in the PKGBUILD, which complicates things a bit.

@taekyung, yes there doesn't seem to be an ideal solution. Both have their ups and down, but having a clash in the binary names is definitely not desirable. Based on the pattern above, maybe your change to chez-scheme was "correct". If you don't want to constantly be changing things around, however, that's fair enough. Sorry for confusing things. I realise maintaining a package can be a lot of work, especially when other packages rely on it.

@joshu, @CodingCellist, thank you for your input, and sorry for making inconveniences and confusion about this package as a maintainer. Apparently, changing PKGBUILD file in idris2 package doesn't fix the problem. So I think it is better to revert the binary name to scheme in order for making no more confusion at the moment.

However would agree on @joshu's comment that having the same binary name for MIT and chez schemes is not desirable at all, given that scheme programmers tend to install many implementations on their computer for testing, etc.

@CodingCellist, it's an interesting point. One could argue that it's a bigger issue to have both MIT and chez installing a binary with a common name (are other implementations also doing the same? I only have gambit installed and its binary is gambitc). It looks like it's straightforward to patch idris2's PKGBUILD to use a different binary name, and loko would require a change to its makefile.

Anyway, I have no preference personally for how this package is installed, so for anyone else reading:

• if this package gets reverted it's simple to patch the PKGBUILD to get around the problem of conflicting MIT/chez scheme installs. See my previous comment https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chez-scheme/#comment-746465

@taekyung, the renaming in the latest release breaks the packages listed under "Required by". They expect, both at compile-time and run-time, to be able to invoke scheme as the executable for Chez Scheme.

Although I appreciate the conflicts with MIT/GNU Scheme, if packages which list this as a requirement still break when it is installed, I would argue that is a more serious concern than the conflict between two packages providing alternative Scheme implementations. If nothing else, the GitHub issue that @joshu links to does mention that Chez Scheme has been referred to as scheme since before its release in 1985 (and as such precedes MIT/GNU Scheme chronologically). The discussion in the GitHub issue seems to suggest anyone requiring a different executable name to install from source, specifying InstallSchemeName, which I would prefer rather than the package deciding this.