From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37419) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eYoIP-0008Tv-71 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 02:26:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eYoIM-0002o0-1l for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 02:26:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:33336) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eYoIL-0002nu-TX for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 02:26:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eYoIL-0006Cm-O5 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 02:26:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#29891] [PATCH] gnu: java-classpathx-servletapi: Update to 3.0-r1244. Resent-Message-ID: From: Chris Marusich References: <20171229134104.6951-1-boskovits@gmail.com> <20180107221142.17118-1-boskovits@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:25:18 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20180107221142.17118-1-boskovits@gmail.com> ("=?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits"'s message of "Sun, 7 Jan 2018 23:11:42 +0100") Message-ID: <87d12jh4td.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Cc: 29891@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable G=C3=A1bor Boskovits writes: > * gnu/packages/java.scm (java-classpathx-servletapi): Update to 3.0-r1244. This seems correct to me. I also verified that this builds reproducibly. The commit message is a bit long; we could summarize it with a sentence instead. How difficult would it be to have upstream make a new release? It looks like we're now using an arbitrary revision of their source code, instead of a release. In general, I think it's better to use a release if we can, since that implies the code has been more thoroughly tested etc. =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEy/WXVcvn5+/vGD+x3UCaFdgiRp0FAlpUbl4ACgkQ3UCaFdgi Rp100w/9EDZR0h4TwlIkfzwjT2kpH0tdy3qe36C+p1K1J6uzstdBgRxUR7lB3uKs YRf4TyGYL2zPHe+hTGRqppVg+MbVih59pmyAZSslRocVGiZBxuzZh8pp1fnHn269 sEeXWv9KXtQD1+x65wWFLzBanV3CnxpqnW+ndoEbotT4oQ/wNRUeBHYhyvsS/pCc VukACF96Br3qF0iK+p7j1HHDjKANZFz0mymAM19MR7Shrs5s7CjEqolLRrj988lP O4TZc75NRdEtZeLEn2EsxqvUBmd1em2QDLS/gOyBtAoLwy4kUp3a1FRIY60konwC rlKEssTv9vy0GKuCjKnsyVZIRWtpwdjsGQO/qsLVFyH5EoQHQzn0oQ2V/4+/pxNI Np7aUBn3sWeeUkLuUlgDm/xorM9B9ei3u3Qs7CJUQrbQBPBISGw6H2DsOz6CJqsU yAVUib4Shy1DGYE0V6neo2zrxi4NIhjM5YHStUYk3viFy9yZyGV7XHxp4E0mleJ4 7rbk7kAYFFbR/3EnhX3f8K94qkgke6D4Bn64Vxt6k1GcnT8JiCbTNfn9tdfl3NtL NHfNl7Rq3n8XLkZNLByUsg6WG3crIXhI05OHTiFhKpN+sQa0b0dh8cvqPaNjqiSg p4LPIW7lMm7WQix2k6EKjaeikrHZ9WN76dg+IPFXytET0YOXjAo= =1sGM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--