Hi, Csepp <raingl...@riseup.net> writes:
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Hi John, >> >> John Kehayias <john.kehay...@protonmail.com> writes: >> >>> Hi Guix, >>> >>> (cc'ing Maxim as author of last few network-manager version updates.) >>> >>> I noticed a recent up date to network-manager to 1.43.4 (previously >>> 1.41.2 and 1.40.0) but can't find a record of that release. In their >>> docs there is no mention of anything newer than the 1.42 release [0, >>> 1] and they mention the even-numbered releases being the stable series >>> [2]. Indeed, Arch only has 1.42.4 in their repos [3]. I only see "dev" >>> tags for these 1.43 versions in their gitlab. >>> >>> Should we be on a 1.42.y version instead? >> >> The GNOME versioning scheme is a bit of a mess; they stopped using >> stable/unstable oven/odd release cycles since GNOME 40 I think, but left >> each of the components the luxury to keep using it, which NetworkManager >> appears to be doing. >> >> 'guix refresh -u' picked 1.43 and I didn't give it much of an thought. >> In general, I think it's OK to carry the "unstable" releases of GNOME >> components, which in my experience are usually stable :-). >> >>> I noticed this because the update to 1.43.4 has an issue with my >>> (wired) connection not resuming from sleep when previously it did. I >>> have to restart the service. I had some logs I can dig up, but in >>> discussing on IRC (no logs that day it seems) there was nothing out of >>> the ordinary and the shepherd service seemed normal. >>> >>> I've since reconfigured to a commit before the most recent version >>> change, namely 5174820753be045ba4fc7cc93da33f4e0b730bc3 and cannot >>> reproduce the issue so seems due to newer versions of network-manager >>> after 1.41.2 at least. >>> >>> Note that this may have been reported upstream [4], but I haven't >>> tested with the current stable release. So this may be a separate >>> (upstream) issue. >> >> So it seems that even if we used the "stable" 1.42.x release, we'd still >> have this problem. It's been reported 4 days ago; I guess let's wait to >> see if a hotfix will be made, as that seems a serious issue. >> >> Otherwise, if many Guix users are affected and no hotfix is on the >> horizon, we could consider reverting back to our older version. >> >> Does that sound reasonable? > > This also affects two of my recently reconfigured/upgraded machines. My > guess is there are probably many others affected. I take this as a "no" :-). Reverted with be5e280e5fe26f93bd5a6e3f76e4502edb913a94. Closing. -- Thanks, Maxim