From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: Re: 02/05: gnu: nss, nss-certs: Update to 3.29.3. Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:04:02 +0100 Message-ID: <87shme320t.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> 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> <20170314215913.GA13036@jasmine> <87y3w733ue.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87vara3cqc.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87wpbq7bh4.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34022) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coCLJ-0006SZ-IA for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:04:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coCLE-0001K7-Mj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:04:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wpbq7bh4.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Marius Bakke skribis: > >> Marius Bakke writes: >> >>> Patch attached. I *think* the two values are for client and server >>> respectively, but will study the source and build logs some more to make >>> sure we're adjusting the right knobs. >>> >>> I suggest we try this on 'core-updates' if the patch is correct. >> >> The patch builds fine on x86_64, and I've verified that these are the >> correct settings by decreasing the values instead of increasing. >> >> What do you think? Should we check if 25s is high enough on >> 'core-updates' or push it directly to 'master'? > > Good catch. > > It might be best to push to =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 to focus our b= uild > resources. No strong opinion though. I pushed it to 'core-updates'. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAljJdAIACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPqcZAf+P/D6NU+mCakSUStQQgDifrlboBmOLL7xli+f6lEcKMFnp/nJ8fGcrzTk PiQF7GP/pnk0zMrR/32bWeaVYgmsSiYAuI4yPnKxvFJLtOovVcCJ+YpIIX1gHfTB U+0JDVCp+in98qIBm/x1mG9RTz6UXy/tKZ5k01ygUclxpcjy48rnxFDVw5aR3DVS CPX7Nt3LJi727U4yPDbp5C5EoZuSIh7SoBZDc+NEcPJx9jlcNEtbh2OlG78o+cEN kZbd00+FKnXGue9IR6AL8MdO+RnlJsp1QDYMiRNZBlCsviKf6Ia4aCBpEkxBLNmM d89xhwcYm9dBcNWH/DLmieOzzVca0A== =7WZy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--