From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thompson, David" Subject: Re: Update btrfs-progs once again and add static output Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:58:42 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1459603774-9455-1-git-send-email-tobias.geerinckx.rice@gmail.com> <20160412000709.GB11228@jasmine> <20160412071344.GA15113@jasmine> <878u0gnof9.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48315) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aqmTU-0007yM-TR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:58:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aqmTT-0007VG-Rm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:58:44 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]:35399) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aqmTT-0007V6-L8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:58:43 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id i84so113734728ywc.2 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <878u0gnof9.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote= : > Leo Famulari skribis: > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:07:09PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 03:29:31PM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: >>> > Some simple patches to add a =E2=80=98static=E2=80=99 output to the b= trfs-progs >>> > package, containing statically linked versions of all the tools. >>> >>> I've applied your patches (with some very minor edits to the commit >>> messages), bringing HEAD to 5f3f3ac2874. >> >> I forgot to check how many packages would be rebuilt by the change to >> util-linux: 714. >> >> Should I revert the change and put it on core-updates? > > That would have been the way to go, yes. > > However, at this point I think it=E2=80=99s too late to revert. Mark? I reverted it, as discussed on IRC. - Dave