From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Issues while updating fossil to 2.1 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:37:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20170412153737.GD5920@jasmine> References: <20170411102505.r2lbvt4comdkwvi6@abyayala> <20170411103231.ekdwanepvptwxiy7@abyayala> <20170411104412.tilyeuj577mkhdfj@abyayala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W5WqUoFLvi1M7tJE" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36184) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cyKL0-0001tt-Tt for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:37:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cyKKw-00010r-Po for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:37:42 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:33531) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cyKKw-00010m-Mj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:37:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (c-73-165-108-70.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.165.108.70]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2CC4F2470C for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:37:38 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170411104412.tilyeuj577mkhdfj@abyayala> 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: guix-devel@gnu.org --W5WqUoFLvi1M7tJE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:44:12AM +0000, ng0 wrote: > There's also an OpenSSL-1.1.0 related bug which was fixed since the > release of fossil 2.1, reported by Debian: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D847556#10 We are still building packages with OpenSSL-1.0.2, so we can ignore this issue for now, right? > I think we should update to at least > https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/8c22e1bbcd8ec048 >=20 > I don't know when they plan to release version 2.2, but it will require > a version of sqlite we do not have. Would it be okay to fall back to the > bundled one then? We *should* have sqlite 3.18 after the next core-updates cycle, hopefully by June 15. --W5WqUoFLvi1M7tJE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAljuScEACgkQJkb6MLrK fwjStxAA6NjGv+UPE904YoQRYpoFcTXnmt5pAJJHecKDSQha953O7M6bzQBPhdQd kD2atN9RCXzwvB4CZytf+mcEXTcZmvfvTL3d9ab0sCpmo6m/IY+iSK6z0JKrWhmI YsSEW+tPTKSnu4CpDBKVh6w67Wl4/WxbIzwzO9L3YvXEofK3KY+UqQPNAAfLT38Z Z8/1QWpmOPzVIMVAUcCNczH8vzO0/BxbAFU1iHuBy6nppOk/Wn9u10BIVkt0leEE oTCEOPfR79XO3PtNBK6AmdgE1UyPa4W8KmUbkC9amyC/xN5nmmLwDnZmKSHCCuSI PNRcpi1wQ6V64PLjaBEvABVgtI4qTFiKbMfkfhZUA0Vaz1vrHdrZcckm0QGPi63Q ZNJ/DxlJSQcxIW3UH6Ad20PjWOpQ7NNPiNAaO8TYvX9PtVKbICLXzUdvEJst7Rqi uzoXBpCMz5+4KjF0vk4CVDR1j7uZWPHZwIoAiVpLEEIhBX6Vjk1SNkxWYpA/dj+J T5A5QnAayaQksDOdICua7G1Zg7w1IU7QJFBpARsk/cOf5DCbMY3ysreSaKJQYwpP HvmbmoC+8CigN0jOyVzFIXBJdKF6+YH+S9B18GGvinsIk5hdkUzKcG3uyTQCX7TK wk/cyO17qnAVh1+VY2tuwI53cU2fqsHigGQyC0VVAGJ4p+eqzP0= =tmcH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W5WqUoFLvi1M7tJE--