Am Montag, dem 29.05.2023 um 20:29 +0100 schrieb Christopher Baines: > > Liliana Marie Prikler <[email protected]> writes: > > > Am Montag, dem 29.05.2023 um 19:28 +0100 schrieb Christopher > > Baines: > > > > > > [email protected] writes: > > > > > > > This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive > > > > script. > > > > > > > > lilyp pushed a commit to branch master > > > > in repository guix. > > > > > > > > The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this > > > > push: > > > > new 7ff003bcbf gnu: eudev: Use new package style. > > > > 7ff003bcbf is described below > > > > > > > > commit 7ff003bcbf388677c7c85b1709c58f41f84b9947 > > > > Author: Felix Lechner <[email protected]> > > > > AuthorDate: Sun May 28 16:28:20 2023 -0700 > > > > > > > > gnu: eudev: Use new package style. > > > > > > > > * gnu/packages/linux.scm (eudev)[arguments]: Convert to > > > > list of > > > > G-Expressions. > > > > [native-inputs]: Drop labels. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Liliana Marie Prikler > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > gnu/packages/linux.scm | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > > > ---- > > > > ------------ > > > > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-) > > > > > > These changes do look to affect the derivation for eudev, and > > > eudev also has too many dependents to update on the master > > > branch. > > > > > > → guix refresh -l eudev > > > Building the following 1913 packages would ensure 4138 dependent > > > packages are rebuilt: ... > > Should I revert it? Even with the mass rebuild, my intuition was > > that it'd be okay since it's no functional change and core-updates > > was dropped in favour of teams (with no particular team being > > responsible for udev afaik). > > I think there is disagreement about this (including at least some > maintainers thinking differently), but I'm of the opinion that while > there has been discussion about stopping using core-updates, people > should follow the currently documented process, and for now that's > still using staging/core-updates [1]. Fair enough, I will refrain from pushing mass rebuilds directly to master.
> 1: > https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html#index-rebuild-scheduling-strategy > > As for reverting it, I'm somewhat indifferent. I'm more interested in > the longer term cost of making changes like this than the temporary > drops in substitute availability. You mean as a precedent for similar commits in the future or as a way of involuntarily breaking other packages? As already stated, I only pushed the commit because I was quite sure that all rebuilds would succeed. Cheers
