From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Updating tzdata freely Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 22:32:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20170313023243.GA19190@jasmine> References: <20170309184304.GA8957@jasmine> <874lyyjra8.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46797) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnFn2-0000XR-Tn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 22:32:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnFmz-000353-RU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 22:32:52 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:55113) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnFmz-000344-8Y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 22:32:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874lyyjra8.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Marius Bakke Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:14:55PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: > Leo Famulari writes: > > Currently, updating tzdata will cause about 1400 package rebuilds. > > However, if don't use the primary tzdata package in the test suites of > > glib and R, a tzdata update will only cause ~388 rebuilds. >=20 > This sounds good; I was thinking the same after seeing the tzdata update > in core-updates. "libical" still causes a fair amounts of rebuilds, but > it's a lot more manageable than the current 1315 packages :-) Yes, it will be a lot more manageable! I pushed these changes as 3ffaec136fab017e6cc094287da207cf30f05974. --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAljGBMAACgkQJkb6MLrK fwgCWhAA3X4mT8s9FnY5Tb82W5HB6aIZjNntOyexfnqhns+wsIjZOo0DNNxbfVFk TkPQl8+dj8svsLdsnCoe+qjpJKmPn1hzYkZ634hxEkkaLucU6EjEho3NN1KA9zNd TJ1p8POEjdtW7QtRXEHaMUTzjFADH9qrz4uuuq/EeEbWf1Pt3RYanyLu30OmA2MN LJvVmpU6xh+ZWPYBXst6Umc/tkaHwyTzSaKiQaz4NIT4YE3dq5JzjGS5+x+V+8KZ CPeEdX0YT1nfMssJ7YM8TkMucvMRZwzRs1wNfVxi9s9yjwASAY2IhTScNiNvVyZv ML/GoGuZ5qvwGF0xm3ZhGyJADiMmAO4lT97uxthUIWgVNc7FsiIGUpaZ1NkRHr1R rvBsiv1XOhaOLmy7FIuTgUhX6b7y3inneRO0M6zGqSfKm5JVmFuPW+HtHnxGAfTN qeEUtQm2yiWk0GBSF8PkXSgrq7idd7CVh77sgB1tPnsxyXBQMn1gstxkmgod4k5b J9i/stO8Yzq0jxQ26EZXNGjIcVTDqeWzNPRZoWHcJYryzVbjBdSpcP3HqYO9iL14 G1sfRmmhCL5SAAxibUh4YKK7Lgcf7uNI2NGKPULLhzr5vtW74F6KGz0LnxpCw72s 94xkN6YkJuLy4G/fM47UXKkrzfjMvYf9Hoz49dNVE2HpypLWpyM= =KTpg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp--