On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:36:48PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > > > On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 02:19:05PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > >> > An aside, the CVE linter gives false positives for grafted packages. For > >> > example, try `guix lint -c cve openssl@1.0`. > >> > >> That’s been annoying me for some time so I’d like to see if we can > >> improve grafting in a way that would allow us to use a different version > >> number in the package replacement, which in turn would allow ‘guix lint’ > >> to see the right version number of the replacement. > > > > That would be nice. The current situation (with misleading package > > versions) is a huge improvement over what we had before, but I think > > that users should not need to understand the implementation details of > > grafting to determine the version of packages. > > > > I always figured this quirky limitation was a side-effect of rushing to > > implement recursive grafting before OpenSSL 1.0.2g was released. > > Done in commit 57bdd79e485801ccf405ca7389bd099809fe5d67! And with > 9bee2bd1b02c7ef91cc7232e8647bd07525d3382, ‘guix lint -c cve openssl@1.0’ > reports the right thing (zero known CVEs).
Awesome :)
