Re: Needed: tooling to detect references to buggy */stable packages (was: Re: [PATCHES] ImageMagick security updates without grafting)

On Sun, 2021-03-28 at 18:33 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Earlier, I wrote: > > One thing to be very careful about is to only use 'gtk-doc/stable', > > 'dblatex/stable', and 'imagemagick/stable' in native-inputs, and > > moreover to make sure that no references to these */stable packages > > remain

[PATCH] display grafted package

Hi Mark and Andreas Quoting from . On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 19:42, Mark H Weaver wrote: > How about changing "guix package -A" and "guix package -s" to display > information about the package's replacement, if it has one? > > Alternatively, those

Needed: tooling to detect references to buggy */stable packages (was: Re: [PATCHES] ImageMagick security updates without grafting)

Earlier, I wrote: > One thing to be very careful about is to only use 'gtk-doc/stable', > 'dblatex/stable', and 'imagemagick/stable' in native-inputs, and > moreover to make sure that no references to these */stable packages > remain in any package outputs. > > Of course, if any package retains ref

Re: [PATCHES] ImageMagick security updates without grafting

On Sun, 2021-03-28 at 17:37 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Maxime Devos writes: > > > On Sat, 2021-03-27 at 20:01 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > > > [...] > > > Maxime wrote: > > > > What does ‘guix refresh --list-dependent imagemagick@6.9.11-48’ > > > > output now? > > > When I last checked, it re

Re: [PATCHES] ImageMagick security updates without grafting

Maxime Devos writes: > On Sat, 2021-03-27 at 20:01 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> [...] >> Maxime wrote: >> > What does ‘guix refresh --list-dependent imagemagick@6.9.11-48’ >> > output now? > >> When I last checked, it reported on the order of 2400 dependent package >> rebuilds. > > I should hav

Re: GNOME 40

Léo Le Bouter writes: > If anyone is curious of the work or wants to participate, we are > working there: > https://git.guix-patches.cbaines.net/guix-patches/log/?h=wip-gnome-40 > > The branch is based on core-updates and we will rebase it every now and > then, as well as merging patches to offi

Re: Document our WIP

Hello, Mathieu, thanks for the additions. Can someone having some experience with pinebook-pro double-check this item ? Vagrant, you seem to have some good results, can you add something about them ? Any other subjects worth mentionning there ? https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Guix/WorkInPro

Re: GNOME 40

If anyone is curious of the work or wants to participate, we are working there: https://git.guix-patches.cbaines.net/guix-patches/log/?h=wip-gnome-40 The branch is based on core-updates and we will rebase it every now and then, as well as merging patches to official core-updates as we feel it is

GNOME 40

Hello Guix! I am starting this thread for the work on GNOME 40. Currently, Léo Le Bouter and I are working together on this. Any one is welcome to join. :-) P.S. Anyone replying to this thread, please `reply-all` or manually `CC` all participants. Thank you! Regards, RG. OpenPGP_signa

Re: Packaging

Please keep guix-devel@gnu.org in CC: or To:. On Sun, 2021-03-28 at 10:18 +, mecqor labi wrote: > Thanks for your help, > The Shadowsocks package does not work in Guix at all, and this has been > reported over the developers of Guix, but it has never been solved. > About Tor, this is not what

Re: [PATCHES] ImageMagick security updates without grafting

On Sat, 2021-03-27 at 20:01 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > [...] > Maxime wrote: > > What does ‘guix refresh --list-dependent imagemagick@6.9.11-48’ > > output now? > When I last checked, it reported on the order of 2400 dependent package > rebuilds. I should have written imagemagick@6.9.12-4 here