Re: 01/01: gnu: glib: Update to 2.53.1.

[Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1563 bytes --]

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

> Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org> writes:
>>
>>> kkebreau pushed a commit to branch gnome-updates
>>> in repository guix.
>>>
>>> commit 90e0b6024b375f919878414163a6ad5857cc4b3e
>>> Author: Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org>
>>> Date:   Sun May 21 18:15:00 2017 -0400
>>>
>>>     gnu: glib: Update to 2.53.1.
>>>     
>>>     * gnu/packages/glib.scm (glib): Update to 2.53.1.
>>
>> Many (most?) of the GNOME-family packages follow an "even/odd"
>> development cycle, where the stable branches have even minor versions.
>> While I couldn't find it mentioned explicitly on the glib homepage, a
>> peek in the git repository suggests that they follow this model:
>>
>> https://git.gnome.org/browse/glib/refs/
>>
>> So I think we should instead go for the most recent 2.52.x release.
>> Can you check whether that is the case for "gobject-introspection" as
>> well?
>>

It appears to be so.

>> `guix refresh` suggests the 1.52.x branch:
>
> Yes, we should always use stable branches unless there is a compelling
> reason to do otherwise.
>
>       Mark

No problem here, especially now that I'm aware of the GNOME version
number scheme.

Should I revert the unstable commits on gnome-updates and replace them
with their equivalents? I didn't intend to use unstable versions of the
GNOME-related software. My intention was to upgrade packages necessary
for gjs to build with minimal failures
(glib -> gobject-introspection -> gjs).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]