From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: 02/05: gnu: nss, nss-certs: Update to 3.29.3. Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:59:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20170314215913.GA13036@jasmine> References: <20170313174039.25881.89989@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20170313174040.C5C6B20CAB@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <878to8qssk.fsf@netris.org> <87innc43ub.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <871stzh8rv.fsf@netris.org> <20170314212701.GA8440@jasmine> <874lyv4jx7.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="VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43364) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnuTQ-0008Pq-2E for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:59:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnuTM-0004D3-Uz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:59:20 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:49636) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnuTM-0004CD-PQ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:59:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874lyv4jx7.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 --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:39:48PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: > Going forward, I wonder if there could be any unintended side effects by > simply increasing the timeouts in nss/gtests/ssl_gtest/tls_connect.cc > from 5000 ms to something like 20000. If a 0-day is discovered in "nss", > we don't want to wait several days to get a successful build. If these failures seem to be timeout issues, I think we should try this. We do have other packages that make similar changes. --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAljIZ7EACgkQJkb6MLrK fwgqkQ/9ETgKYAV+VGXc/fvPkQACmwth9VOmyiMnI8AEBQDEp3KDtSZOqbOcA1lt 9EM1O8j+04UKGquLCQysAjNSPNQi+WrPZN7SeQCeeZ4Un+t+qummELmnNFbVrR8k zTaacv1xf2r2x77ro28qGLa6yBxWOTo+e0T0M4DUjajRwa5TDFhW/LgfX1qr1NZC YzxdoS41D6sAX32SxPm2iKpCpi6kwzMP/ZEdP94x0tfK2Ko+LcK8KbGuwoJqri51 pE3lYyw/8WE2sREHNU3f4vKrZ+UKRnncDGy4/Kcr90EwnT8o1fUb7It+GNTAiyrs egjmxW/hY9HbBYVcJI+YuztvXmSNoSqtRdrkwQAWYelTDIW9bX/tCNINUl8//w2+ K3g0Ewfs6BmzoFP6Z+JnG0wjvRF3bpuk4Sj6JHTJTO6Q0IrUYD7rEcnxrIaOv8kR bFKuH4ej65s/0vZOpQx/hcjp+HcgBm8b8afltTkuvB6r3eFWCi2vkASSIWF8VQZx y/yibj4luQsnZO7po0zqkYT5vJqCkxD9d4O/hq8vAsdxyQTJhuhwtKtRxUSPgxN3 WcOAvd2XsZn0zz7TIERoKJr6LrnXe8JcA9TDxkihV/ORIkS2qOD1bm2EGJz4ogdd ayfhaDrCWOROc8ZA0vCDONkzuoA5fjyalUVn9ujpjD9dv4ftnoo= =WRWy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J--