Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2

[Andreas Enge]

Am Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:40:45AM +0100 schrieb Léo Le Bouter:
> We had a user reporting that Inkscape stopped working after the graft (
> https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-03-18.log#100200), after which we
> decided on IRC with rekado we might cheat by symlinking the shared
> libraries, which I've done in commit
> 2e0ff59f0cd836b156f1ef2e78791d864ce3cfcd, from a glance it didnt seem
> the soname change caused backwards incompatible changes but only
> forward incompatible changes.

It happens I just wanted to use inkscape, started submitting a bug report:
   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/47315
and ended up realising that this is exactly the issue discussed on
guix-devel.

I cannot afford a "guix pull" right now, since with
   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/31719
this might mean a download of a few gigabytes, so I did not check whether
the symlinking fix does work.

But honestly, this feels like piling a cludge (symlinking) onto a cludge
(grafting), and that we are not in the high quality approach for which
I appreciate Guix.

Personally, I would suggest to revert the commits. If the CVE is sufficiently
important (it would be useful if the commit log or the diff itself contained
its number), maybe we can update the imagemagick version on the wip-release
branch, which is supposed to be built soon and merged back to master?

And please let us agree that in the future, we only backport fixes in grafts
and do not update version numbers.

Andreas