From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: GNOME updater Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 12:12:25 +0200 Message-ID: <20151209121225.538fb6e7@debian-netbook> References: <87twntsx0y.fsf@gnu.org> <20151208151811.7e16a0f0@debian-netbook> <87a8pl9dqc.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/T1SEJMM.ZXneCKVz+nksQ9k"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51213) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a6bka-00035j-Qn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 05:13:33 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a6bkV-0008K6-Pg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 05:13:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87a8pl9dqc.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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?B?Q291cnTDqHM=?= Cc: Guix-devel --Sig_/T1SEJMM.ZXneCKVz+nksQ9k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:11:55 +0100 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Efraim Flashner skribis: >=20 > > A for gnome-3, the 3.19 series AFAIK is the beta/development releases f= or > > 3.20, so would we want to update to those numbers? =20 >=20 > Good point, we probably don=E2=80=99t want those. >=20 > Fixed in c499125, which leads to a shorter list: >=20 >[snip] =20 it might need a bit more work. For example, vte is at 0.40.0 and current upstream is 0.43.0, but presumably there is a 0.42.x release in there somewhere. Or at least for gnome-mines and -terminal, I'm sure there's a 3.= 18 release between our 3.16.x and upstream 3.19.x. I tried a bit at the logic but wasn't able to quickly figure something out. As a test at-spi2-atk in gtk.scm can be upgraded to 2.18.3. > > Also, if we don't want to use those releases, we should check if the > > other packages also use the odd (version minor-version) numbers as a > > symbol for beta/rc releases. =20 >=20 > This is checked for GNU packages already, and I assume there=E2=80=99s no= notion > of =E2=80=9Cunstable=E2=80=9D releases on repos such as PyPI and CRAN? Could this also be a problem for GNU packages? If we didn't update to the latest release before they put out a new development version? >=20 > Thanks for your feedback! >=20 > Ludo=E2=80=99. Always happy to help :) --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --Sig_/T1SEJMM.ZXneCKVz+nksQ9k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWZ/6JAAoJEPTB05F+rO6ThVMP/1qhocT0VrvGNm+EB0U3nhsC P1y5jLAdsfwq1sw9vsEoXU7hRQ2WRInX7y0dGyWgw70ncaoPKdRD+dg+f4/FZqVN Vg6nXbcMrj1iNCtF8QzFK5l+TwNc7IIZg03qPpxDMn1gp4hYHRMK6rmJJC9JCRSx P/U3MVeSAEFfFbWCcg6ud3hT5ZesRYYnuElWV/YRgaVbEKYpjPEmPea08drJjbhd G+4OSiNaclU4/7wtfSwTy2c3mQELcxcP6tx04R6Bb8EP26EUn+he8RwYzfrGlWW+ kxU8mEKiXW4K6rhywJVo6aS6KeyEiIZ9M6WtcVJTh8nbAeq/u0gtr9zxJ1WNCMpH 5aOjP77FvDW3Lh0ek7tm7mptasdTGUnAOs6pIigGzvI0OfQP7bke6E8UAQG9Azo9 PPxMw9ripbR3fzYFqIhorNq0+pBGAkED5aNOSOpuOG9Ya59Q07HUr9eJjUKWeID8 EdJV94kXN/5WJ5oXQSEHfkIQrz+IsSKZnUX2LvOqEtB6qas7N6+Whilj9qpSRf3j qrfiT9r6+3JYl5u/YfGJ6cx0Vl7Y7DCkJHsL0S8LsCfhGjb+AKaU/RLpNLF9eB4+ 5hDbsRjGFxgMxFSeCzdoyPW4mgKbRIGX3gpvbfzfjRO7sD8jChc5TlFf8XBvCxZW 8awUJKjYjpo1wiFsSrdS =u72t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/T1SEJMM.ZXneCKVz+nksQ9k--