From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: Help with Perl security update
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:09:00 -0400
Message-ID: <20160729210900.GB16455@jasmine>
References: <20160725200009.GA1175@jasmine>
	<20160725212337.hd2d75pz5rls2w5r@venom>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36847)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bTF1u-0001B1-Ki
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:09:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bTF1q-0007G6-Ct
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:09:13 -0400
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:58177)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bTF1p-0007EI-6p
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:09:10 -0400
Received: from localhost (c-68-81-58-201.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [68.81.58.201])
	by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4BEB2F29F7
	for <guix-devel@gnu.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160725212337.hd2d75pz5rls2w5r@venom>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:23:37PM +0200, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> This looks like we're missing some patches. My guess is that this is
> consequence of the fact that upstream is on 5.22.2 already and we're
> on 5.22.1. I'm not sure what value to choose here as the result won't
> be neither 3.56_01 nor 3.56_02. Maybe add extra suffix?
> 
> Or we can just skip bfe2dd1e9c3296bebf3ab9adc2ca48d3eb8d105d and let
> the version same. Someone with deeper perl experience should decide.

Thanks for digging in. I agree, someone with deeper knowledge of Perl
should make this choice. I don't understand the implications of omitting
the patch.