From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Woodcroft Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: ruby: Replace with 2.3.2 [fixes CVE-2015-3900]. Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 17:00:58 +1000 Message-ID: <02b39505-a3e4-266a-b4d9-5f031fd7f02a@uq.edu.au> References: <20161118233209.28746-1-donttrustben@gmail.com> <20161118233209.28746-2-donttrustben@gmail.com> <20161119152818.GA8435@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55930) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c8M7z-0005yB-0u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 02:01:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c8M7w-0001fw-0E for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 02:01:27 -0500 Received: from mailhub1.soe.uq.edu.au ([130.102.132.208]:54466 helo=newmailhub.uq.edu.au) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c8M7v-0001fC-Du for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 02:01:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20161119152818.GA8435@jasmine> 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 , Ben Woodcroft Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On 20/11/16 01:28, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 09:32:09AM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote: >> * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby)[replacement]: New field. >> (ruby-2.3.2): New variable. >> --- >> gnu/packages/ruby.scm | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/gnu/packages/ruby.scm b/gnu/packages/ruby.scm >> index e4c1ef0..f2b5de9 100644 >> --- a/gnu/packages/ruby.scm >> +++ b/gnu/packages/ruby.scm >> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ >> (define-public ruby >> (package >> (name "ruby") >> + (replacement ruby-2.3.2) > Remember that grafted replacements should have a compatible ABI. > > This is the first result I found when searching for "Ruby ABI compatible" > > https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version-policy-changes-with-2-1-0/ > > So, if they've kept that policy, this should be fine. I can't see any evidence to the contrary. I also ran a compatibility checker and it seemed to work out (while 2.3.2 vs 2.2.6 did not, as a negative control). https://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/ I'm not quite finished packaging it yet up to standard just yet, but I pushed what I have here, in case it is useful in the meantime. https://github.com/wwood/guix_mine/blob/master/ben/packages/local.scm I pushed the graft to master and updated it directly on staging. ben