bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version?

[Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net>]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi John,
>
> John Kehayias <john.kehayias@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.