From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Libtiff 4.0.7 update Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:17:13 +0100 Message-ID: <87oa144zue.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20161121164827.GA29287@jasmine> <87mvgs92ac.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <20161121183230.GA31354@jasmine> <87oa156gfi.fsf@gnu.org> <20161124035744.GA507@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33558) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9wi8-0004lC-FK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:17:21 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c9wi3-00027H-O5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:17:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20161124035744.GA507@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:57:44 -0500") 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: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Leo Famulari skribis: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:21:21PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Hi! >>=20 >> Leo Famulari skribis: >>=20 >> > It would be nice to remove the grafts soon, but it's over the 1200 >> > rebuild limit for staging: >> > >> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-10/msg00933.html >> > >> > But, I'll put it on staging if there is a consensus. I guess that >> > staging will end up requiring more than 1200 rebuilds anyways, since >> > there could be multiple changes with that much impact, but affecting >> > different parts of the package graph. >>=20 >> Yes, that should be OK, especially since it=E2=80=99s a safe change. > > I made the change, updating libtiff to 4.0.7 and building it with GCC 5, > in 0bd1097c50950d47954b4dc136654dfbde45d5b1. > > I had already updated it on core-updates; should I revert that change? No, the next merge will detect that it=E2=80=99s the same thing, I guess. Ludo=E2=80=99.