[bug#67047] [PATCH] gnu: xorg-server: Update to 21.1.9.

[bug#67047] [PATCH] gnu: xorg-server: Update to 21.1.9.

[Kaelyn via Guix-patches via]

Hi,

I wanted to bring folks' attention to https://issues.guix.gnu.org/67047 which updates xorg-server, including a number of security fixes. The patch has been pending for about 17 days now, and while the QA badge reports "failed" I just spot-checked some of the failures and they seem to be unrelated (e.g. a lot of builds going from unknown to blocked or vice versa, the one new failure for aarch64 being a large download test in the onionshare package, etc). 

Is there anything I can do to help the process along? It may also be worth noting that "guix refresh -l xorg-server" reports 125 rebuilds. I also checked and the update to xorg-server does not appear to alter the derivation for the xorg-server-for-tests (which is still at version 21.1.1).

Cheers,
Kaelyn

bug#67047: [PATCH] gnu: xorg-server: Update to 21.1.9.

[John Kehayias via Guix-patches via]

Dear Kaelyn,

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:46 PM, Kaelyn wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I wanted to bring folks' attention to
> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/67047> which updates xorg-server, including
> a number of security fixes. The patch has been pending for about 17
> days now, and while the QA badge reports "failed" I just spot-checked
> some of the failures and they seem to be unrelated (e.g. a lot of
> builds going from unknown to blocked or vice versa, the one new
> failure for aarch64 being a large download test in the onionshare
> package, etc).
>

Thanks for the update. Yes, QA looked good to me too, all things
considered.

> Is there anything I can do to help the process along? It may also be
> worth noting that "guix refresh -l xorg-server" reports 125 rebuilds.
> I also checked and the update to xorg-server does not appear to alter
> the derivation for the xorg-server-for-tests (which is still at
> version 21.1.1).
>
> Cheers,
> Kaelyn

No, you did exactly what you needed to. I did see this patch when it
came in and was just giving a bit for QA to do the builds. That took
longer, I got distracted hoping I could merge mesa-updates first, then
hit CI delays...all that is to say I should have communicated I had
this on my radar.

Sorry about that! I appreciate the patch and the nudge.

Pushed as 06e0f638abd36f816a221af4542ca4a850d7af2d with a minor tweak
to the commit message to note [security fixes] at the top. I built it
locally for x86_64 with mesa-updates merged.

Which reminds me to make sure we have a way to flagging security
updates just like other teams/tags and get them priority. Now on the
security team, it is a first priority.

Thanks again!
John