Re: Starting 'core-updates'

[Mark H Weaver]

Leo Famulari <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:12:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote:
>> I was running a bit late with my patches and pushed them to a separate
>> branch before noticing the 'rhash' update on 'master'.  Now there have
>> been a couple of world-rebuilding commits on the 'core-updates-next'
>> branch since, so I wonder how to move forward.
>> 
>> * Start 'core-updates' as-is.
>> * Pick all updates from the -next branch that won't rebuild the world
>>   (that is everything apart from "xz" and "file").
>> * Take all the -next commits, remove the Perl graft, and do a new 'core'
>>   evaluation.
>> 
>> Any preferences?  Due to the "rhash" update, I suppose we can take
>> anything from -next that depends on CMake also with option #1.
>
> I haven't been paying attention this cycle. But if anyone has, then I
> think it's best to do option 1 along with the rhash, since most of the
> bug-fixing work will still be valid.

I agree.  I've been running core-updates for a long time now.  It works.

The 'rhash' update has forced a great deal of rebuilding on it (my X200
has been rebuilding all night, and is still going), but I do not expect
that it will cause any new problems.  The further updates on -next might
very well cause more bugs that need to be investigated and fixed.

The reason that I moved my own systems so agressively to core-updates
this cycle is because I no longer trust that grafting works properly on
'master', and so security flaws might not be fully addressed there.  I'm
disappointed that there have been so many delays since then, and I'd
prefer not to add any more.

What do you think?

      Mark