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

[Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>]

[-- 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 --]