From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: updating gdk-pixbuf for epiphany Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 14:37:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20170401183704.GC18851@jasmine> References: <87lgrj429s.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jy6Sn24JjFx/iggw" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46930) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cuNte-0005mX-D3 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Apr 2017 14:37:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cuNtZ-000629-DI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Apr 2017 14:37:10 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:39728) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cuNtZ-00061z-9P for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Apr 2017 14:37:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87lgrj429s.fsf@elephly.net> 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel --jy6Sn24JjFx/iggw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:55:27AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I=E2=80=99d like to update Epiphany to the latest release but noticed tha= t it > needs a slightly younger version of gdk-pixbuf. Updating gdk-pixbuf to > 2.36.6 would result in *many* rebuilds. =E2=80=9Cguix refresh -l gdk-pix= buf=E2=80=9D > tells me this: >=20 > Building the following 324 packages would ensure 630 dependent packag= es are rebuilt=E2=80=A6 >=20 > So, should this be done in a separate branch along with other GNOME > updates or can this go to staging after merging core-updates? We should update all the GNOME stuff, but that requires some focused work. So, if you or somebody else is up for it, great :) If not, I think it's fine to put it on a staging branch. --jy6Sn24JjFx/iggw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAljf808ACgkQJkb6MLrK fwhcehAA2PN9mv+sjln46n6o0DaAUebmQlU0OMRct7wZeCczW7EzrPMUHLP2fRjr U5jBweHwmkR+5v1sEW14vnXE3aIQn/aV+EBW9czl8bHgAClE9OVkqTnksX2oZqP+ FfSy8obj+Jmv8HO4Xh3BCSx2Vd+TGbyi0Htj8VdEG/uTMbftKBXOsDCby5gKYYBP Nf4RXuTpjGg6TpIsSLVL73JnjPAOeVb/g6JmLnPG+F0o2Pe7n36MHmyruP4h2oVr TCubdKUL/XazdmDSJf+befD9LykfJmPZsQnNZrS1SdDvUJ1kIT8T1sDQceffq1ws z2r66cojMH9HuAvqVG2441l4PWalurwEdMlifMZCDIxmrgKAOJChAOIIY2r/ymdU tJGIZT5ZU8axAK9KbmGBkTFNHixU9sv4ZDpQdZhf6rmKmD2Q3oQqCeNO1RKRgUiQ wzT1qInt0iIIp6culP/Qjyco4UPSpOjCnwuhFjExjcvWwugQWQlmX//WPEala2a3 8wQdMiXzJsJVREr/2O9XqsGO0aU1o4HQzFoazgkIx71keOQp/pXejA7WfOwdr7hz n2m/nR9W5LIuWWaYs0J5hkt3jm6kOirKMfYmGCZL7DBlyl/LbNVgUbDopLiC0mma /W7C3HrFtadn4Q1KL/iVWTxvurhPdassoSbKq6aSfr3SLzku8KQ= =1WeF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jy6Sn24JjFx/iggw--