From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: 01/02: gnu: linux-libre: Update to 4.11. Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 17:24:57 -0400 Message-ID: <87tw54qnh2.fsf@netris.org> References: <20170501175046.3438.70539@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20170501175047.3D761231A5@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35828) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Ioy-00015y-K9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 May 2017 17:25:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Iot-0005b5-NT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 May 2017 17:25:28 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:42094) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5Iot-0005Xm-JR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 May 2017 17:25:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170501175047.3D761231A5@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> (Leo Famulari's message of "Mon, 1 May 2017 13:50:47 -0400 (EDT)") 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.name (Leo Famulari) writes: > lfam pushed a commit to branch master > in repository guix. > > commit cfd2ca8244bc7a5c130677718ad2ad75f7316c68 > Author: Mathieu Othacehe > Date: Mon May 1 11:41:21 2017 +0200 > > gnu: linux-libre: Update to 4.11. > > * gnu/packages/linux.scm (%linux-libre-version): Update to 4.11. > (%linux-libre-hash): Update hash. > > Signed-off-by: Leo Famulari This needs an updated configuration file as well, which I've been doing manually using "make oldconfig". The package code looks for a configuration file in: gnu/packages/aux-files/linux-libre/-.conf Since there is no such file for version 4.11, I guess maybe it will just use a default configuration from upstream? I expect this will likely cause people some problems. I think we should revert this until I can perform the update in my usual way, unless someone wants to take over maintenance of the kernel packages from me. Mark