From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47795) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g3kyY-0005BW-2M for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:41:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g3kty-00083F-CA for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:37:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:45536) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g3kty-00081K-0D for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:37:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g3ktx-0006ew-QE for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 12:37:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#32095] [PATCH 2/2] gnu: node: Update to 10.6.0. Resent-Message-ID: From: Mathieu Lirzin References: <20180708152009.28002-1-mthl@gnu.org> <20180708152009.28002-2-mthl@gnu.org> <87muv0fo9d.fsf@gnu.org> <87pnxqus5x.fsf@gnu.org> <87a7oteeos.fsf@fastmail.com> <87tvn1z6ge.fsf@gnu.org> <87in2x36ys.fsf@gnu.org> <875zyxmttw.fsf@fastmail.com> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 18:36:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <875zyxmttw.fsf@fastmail.com> (Marius Bakke's message of "Sat, 22 Sep 2018 17:32:11 +0200") Message-ID: <87h8ihbibh.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Marius Bakke Cc: 32095@debbugs.gnu.org Marius Bakke writes: > We already have the latest libuv on 'core-updates'. Indeed, I forgot to prune old branches and get confused. > I wanted to push > this patch to master actually (with a libuv-1.23 package), but node does > not work with OpenSSL 1.1.1: > . I have read rapidly this thread. IIRC the build for node 10.xx was failing with =E2=80=98openssl=E2=80=99 wh= ich was the reason of upgrading to =E2=80=98openssl-next=E2=80=99 and this issue seems = to imply that node fails to run with =E2=80=98openssl-next=E2=80=99? Is that correct? Have you recently tried to compile =E2=80=98node=E2=80=99 with libuv-1.23 w= ithout upgrading the =E2=80=9Copenssl=E2=80=9D input? How did it work? > So I wonder if we should downgrade to the 8.12 LTS release, which still > supports OpenSSL 1.0, until the OpenSSL situation is sorted. From what > I can tell it might take a while. > > What do you think? I think that ideally it would be a good idea to have both the latest and the LTS versions distributed in Guix. So I agree with your solution of downgrading to 8.12 LTS. --=20 Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37