From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: 02/05: gnu: nss, nss-certs: Update to 3.29.3. Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:42:27 -0400 Message-ID: <87wpbq9yb0.fsf@netris.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38891) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coDss-0004Fk-FC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:42:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coDsp-0000K5-DR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:42:54 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:48580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coDsp-0000Hs-8f for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:42:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87vara3cqc.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> (Marius Bakke's message of "Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:12:43 +0100") 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 Marius Bakke writes: > 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. This seems like the right approach, thanks! > What do you think? Should we check if 25s is high enough on > 'core-updates' or push it directly to 'master'? I'd be okay with pushing this to master. Thank you! Mark