[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] gnu: ed: Replace with 1.14.1 [fixes security issues].

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: ed: Replace with 1.14.1 [fixes security issues].
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:50:25 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> skribis:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:56:51PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
>>>> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:13:53PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
>>>> >> * gnu/packages/ed.scm (ed-1.14.1): New variable.
>>>> >> (ed)[replacement]: New field.
>>>> >
>>>> > Can you add a comment with a link to the bug report?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> Good find. I wonder, was this issue only present in the unreleased
>>>> 1.14.0? I can't reproduce it with the current Guix version.
>>> Good catch; I can only reproduce it with 1.14, and the ed maintainer
>>> points out that it was introduced in 1.14.
>>>> I'll wait and see what the response on oss-sec is. Maybe we can just
>>>> push the update to core-updates.
>>> I think it's fine for core-updates.
>> With 200 dependent packages, it could even go to ‘master’.
> "guix refresh -l" is _way_ off in this case.  'ed' is a native-input for
> 'patch', which is of course entails a full rebuild.

Oh indeed, sorry for the confusion!

>From the viewpoint of ‘guix refresh -l’, (@ (gnu packages ed) ed) is not
the same package/derivation as the one that ‘patch’ in (@ (gnu packages
commencement) %final-inputs) refers to.

So ‘guix refresh -l’ is not “wrong”, but clearly it fails to capture
something important here.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]