Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #20 from Robert Knight <knight@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I reported in January that I had successfully built the current Racket on Fedora 17, but I only reported it to the E-mail address which shows when I hover over Daniel's name in this ticket. I admit I didn't follow up further as I was involved with other things (work). Here's what I said: "The only things that I added were additional BuildRequires lines: BuildRequires: libffi BuildRequires: libjpeg-turbo BuildRequires: cairomm ghostscript-fonts libgudev1 libev BuildRequires: libXtst picviz BuildRequires: gtk2 libfontenc libXfont BuildRequires: libXcomposite xorg-x11-font-utils BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils I have only tried F17. Since my only contribution has been persistence is searching for the missing packages, I thought I'd start by reporting these additional requirements to you and see where you want to go from here. I'd be absolutely fine with your carrying on from this point. It probably needs a little architecture love, since, even on x86_64, it puts the .so files into /usr/lib, rather than /usr/lib64. And those doc files are enormous. I haven't yet gone back to look at plt-scheme to see how it was broken up, but, as I understand it, racket is substantially changed from plt-scheme. I'm certainly willing to help in any direction that will of help. I have access to 32 and 64 bit Intel systems as well as 64 bit Power systems and can try builds and installations on F16, F17 and F18 (such as it is.)" I have different versions now but I'm still willing to help, althought I can't spend enough time on it to be maintainer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=g524a3aLC8&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review