[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2 |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:53:35 +0100 |
Hi,
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 at 15:04, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> To me that means we should revert this patch series (perhaps with the
> exception of bb2427fa28):
>
> 2e0ff59f0c gnu: imagemagick/fixed: Redirect old sonames to new sonames.
> bb2427fa28 gnu: ImageMagick: Refer to the version number in a more robust
> way.
> bb5d84a048 gnu: ImageMagick: Fix version number in build configuration of
> grafted replacement.
> 852ba914a4 gnu: imagemagick/fixed: Retain version length for successful
> grafting.
> 82e887ba48 gnu: imagemagick: Update to 6.9.12-2 [security fixes].
>
> After that, what we can do, is introduce 6.9.12-2 as an additional
> public version of imagemagick. That way, users who run:
>
> guix install imagemagick
>
> get the newer version, the one that includes security fixes.
I agree. It sounds reasonable. In the same time, is it possible to
start to build the branch wip-next-release? then an ungrafted version
could be pushed there and if all the substitutes are availaible on time,
we could cherry-pick for the release.
Cheers,
simon
- imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/19
- Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2, Julien Lepiller, 2021/03/19
- Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2, Ludovic Courtès, 2021/03/21
- Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2, Andreas Enge, 2021/03/22
- Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2, Andreas Enge, 2021/03/23
- Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2, Léo Le Bouter, 2021/03/23
- Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2, Leo Famulari, 2021/03/23