From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] QEMU 2.9.0-rc1 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:37:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20170330233710.GA12960@jasmine> References: <87bmsifttx.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54668) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ctjd0-0000Wl-3W for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:37:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ctjcv-0003Pb-Vu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:37:17 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:40728) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ctjcv-0003Oi-JR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:37:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bmsifttx.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> 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 --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:27:54PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: > Leo Famulari writes: > > gnu: qemu: Update to 2.9.0-rc1 [security fixes]. >=20 > I think it would be nice to have this in Guix proper (as a separate > variable), so users don't have to apply this patch and build it > manually. The downside is that it would land in users' profiles unless > they take steps to prevent it, but I'm not sure how much of a problem > that is given how easy it is to roll-back or exclude it. Thoughts? I'm unsure if we should add it. QEMU usually goes through 4 or 5 release candidates. Does anyone have experience using these heavily? Are they stable or can we expect them to be buggier than a real release? --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAljdlp0ACgkQJkb6MLrK fwhP1g/9H4E/EsYP0K7YxWvtdSVpjD9kKeRqHQFtb9e5NftyxEwLFpE5/rkAl4an 5eiTthsN/1O6G0VQ5yRhq3iE6Fg+xVd+vW+FzelgMGC+lF1V/3q1qy9Bm+FKCwRU fQhM+crog4myBciDsMTvc8fzfZzd3eE8erhtjycI6VMfx06slBx8kNKSxzqb/7DU uxL39wXRBFGlPZ/NBsv/f+wVOziYsGyi5/v3Rbv8UcBuCvCbyOA8oOtC36Kg8k6X 5jsOmR7cOGzzDquC6jZK5Ii4noSEX1IJlTuSQqXrq7jj4gM9E4vKIZiZhXDp5I8X sWD8HsLn4xtQozCBLm4OVlNBlX7OQmpFr4ppXYAI0bPEQ8yaXjX7GGo+uEbUU5xl 3ovUisAFis5sCEQjiH1Vo5xmw/muxuwNIBGaR+LNrSPek8H7hsA3C8nNr2EqGMlW wSfTbwhsvQ+QiUa4KhWDjvwHLR6JN6dOZAMyn6lQm1pmsdZxCznTD7B/LniBzRVl 5HYST/CzlQOmxl316AQaXwlzRpZaGDJUTgTlBEhdu6P82X4UMM03ZHkqhvkaplH4 Cnnt1YD7+5R4XOPEMKY6cppKteAPdEO8q60J9MaOKVaSrZAylkNKglrNHKlJ6hjF r7fMy4tmBs6pW2NnAX14DqpTJRpSCjfAByanMrTbCBt4/7m97NQ= =Qr2G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z--