From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: ed: Replace with 1.14.1 [fixes security issues].
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:50:25 +0100
Message-ID: <87d1fplee6.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20170112201353.29406-1-mbakke@fastmail.com>
	<20170112215005.GA13508@jasmine>
	<87o9zc54d8.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<20170112221723.GA20450@jasmine> <87r347rtv0.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87shomdfdn.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40593)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1cSSTJ-0002Rj-2n
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:50:34 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1cSSTE-0002Wz-C3
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:50:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87shomdfdn.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 13
	Jan 2017 12:44:04 -0500")
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: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>
>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:56:51PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
>>>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>>>>=20
>>>> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:13:53PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
>>>> >> * gnu/packages/ed.scm (ed-1.14.1): New variable.
>>>> >> (ed)[replacement]: New field.
>>>> >
>>>> > Can you add a comment with a link to the bug report?
>>>> >
>>>> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ed/2017-01/msg00000.html
>>>>=20
>>>> Good find. I wonder, was this issue only present in the unreleased
>>>> 1.14.0? I can't reproduce it with the current Guix version.
>>>
>>> Good catch; I can only reproduce it with 1.14, and the ed maintainer
>>> points out that it was introduced in 1.14.
>>>
>>>> I'll wait and see what the response on oss-sec is. Maybe we can just
>>>> push the update to core-updates.
>>>
>>> I think it's fine for core-updates.
>>
>> With 200 dependent packages, it could even go to =E2=80=98master=E2=80=
=99.
>
> "guix refresh -l" is _way_ off in this case.  'ed' is a native-input for
> 'patch', which is of course entails a full rebuild.

Oh indeed, sorry for the confusion!

>From the viewpoint of =E2=80=98guix refresh -l=E2=80=99, (@ (gnu packages e=
d) ed) is not
the same package/derivation as the one that =E2=80=98patch=E2=80=99 in (@ (=
gnu packages
commencement) %final-inputs) refers to.

So =E2=80=98guix refresh -l=E2=80=99 is not =E2=80=9Cwrong=E2=80=9D, but cl=
early it fails to capture
something important here.

Ludo=E2=80=99.