Re: 03/09: gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.

Re: 03/09: gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

mbakke@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) skribis:

> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging
> in repository guix.
>
> commit 66d4cd7978d41cfde5047f281dc17693bbd4610e
> Author: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
> Date:   Sat Jul 29 18:34:15 2017 +0200
>
>     gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.
>     
>     * gnu/packages/linux.scm (util-linux): Update to 2.30.1.

util-linux has ~2,100 dependents, so per the guidelines in the manual
(info "(guix) Submitting Patches"), we should perhaps push it to
‘core-updates’ instead?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: 03/09: gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2040 bytes --]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello!
>
> mbakke@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) skribis:
>
>> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging
>> in repository guix.
>>
>> commit 66d4cd7978d41cfde5047f281dc17693bbd4610e
>> Author: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
>> Date:   Sat Jul 29 18:34:15 2017 +0200
>>
>>     gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.
>>     
>>     * gnu/packages/linux.scm (util-linux): Update to 2.30.1.
>
> util-linux has ~2,100 dependents, so per the guidelines in the manual
> (info "(guix) Submitting Patches"), we should perhaps push it to
> ‘core-updates’ instead?

I have kind of mentally adjusted the 1200 limit to ~1800 to account for
the amount of new packages since that was written.  :-)

1800 would let us update things like dbus, glib and pango, where most of
util-linux' 2100 dependents come from, which is why I "threw it in
there".  But I guess our build farm has not scaled in accordion with the
package count.

Since we're now doing shorter core-updates cycles, I suppose these
updates can wait.  However, reverting these commits:

de02edbf11ffab652cc9def611358eefbc860147 gnu: cairo: Update to 1.14.10.                            
1bb0545bb8bcf3a60efa940ef2442763d8abe975 gnu: glib: Update to 2.52.3.                              
d2ee294c0400ac8f2a10f10c3c9644da513a3712 gnu: pango: Update to 1.40.11.                            
a4a3d93290e8ad35f6e7526e78878d2d3397bb27 gnu: harfbuzz: Update to 1.5.0.                           
66d4cd7978d41cfde5047f281dc17693bbd4610e gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.                        
9238a9c086cc4ebac078080c1e7201c570660031 gnu: dbus: Update to 1.10.22.

...brings the 'staging' rebuild count down to ~1640 according to `guix
refresh -l libva mesa libdrm bluez cunit wayland graphviz librsvg gtk+`,
even though they individually don't touch more than ~1k packages.

Adding 'dbus' gives 1988 and 'util-linux' 2171, so it's not a huge
difference.  Is it still worth dropping the 300-500 extra rebuilds?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: 03/09: gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.

[Mark H Weaver]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> mbakke@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) skribis:
>>
>>> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging
>>> in repository guix.
>>>
>>> commit 66d4cd7978d41cfde5047f281dc17693bbd4610e
>>> Author: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
>>> Date:   Sat Jul 29 18:34:15 2017 +0200
>>>
>>>     gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.
>>>     
>>>     * gnu/packages/linux.scm (util-linux): Update to 2.30.1.
>>
>> util-linux has ~2,100 dependents, so per the guidelines in the manual
>> (info "(guix) Submitting Patches"), we should perhaps push it to
>> ‘core-updates’ instead?
>
> I have kind of mentally adjusted the 1200 limit to ~1800 to account for
> the amount of new packages since that was written.  :-)
>
> 1800 would let us update things like dbus, glib and pango, where most of
> util-linux' 2100 dependents come from, which is why I "threw it in
> there".  But I guess our build farm has not scaled in accordion with the
> package count.

Even if our build farm had enough capacity, I hope we will also consider
the needs of those who wish to build everything locally, perhaps because
they do not consider the build farm sufficiently trustworthy.  FWIW, I'm
one of those people, and the amount of churn on 'master' is increasingly
uncomfortable for me.

       Mark

Re: 03/09: gnu: util-linux: Update to 2.30.1.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> skribis:

> Adding 'dbus' gives 1988 and 'util-linux' 2171, so it's not a huge
> difference.  Is it still worth dropping the 300-500 extra rebuilds?

Well, maybe not after all, it’s hard to tell.  I guess we’d need more
sophisticated ways to estimate the cost of updates.

Is anyone looking for a PhD topic?  :-)

Ludo’.