Message ID | 80e916fe13f864ec59afe3b8e517dce2bf3b7718.1699634744.git.kaelyn.alexi@protonmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [bug#67047] gnu: xorg-server: Update to 21.1.9. | expand |
Hi, I wanted to bring folks' attention to https://issues.guix.gnu.org/67047 which updates xorg-server, including a number of security fixes. The patch has been pending for about 17 days now, and while the QA badge reports "failed" I just spot-checked some of the failures and they seem to be unrelated (e.g. a lot of builds going from unknown to blocked or vice versa, the one new failure for aarch64 being a large download test in the onionshare package, etc). Is there anything I can do to help the process along? It may also be worth noting that "guix refresh -l xorg-server" reports 125 rebuilds. I also checked and the update to xorg-server does not appear to alter the derivation for the xorg-server-for-tests (which is still at version 21.1.1). Cheers, Kaelyn
Dear Kaelyn, On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:46 PM, Kaelyn wrote: > Hi, > > I wanted to bring folks' attention to > <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/67047> which updates xorg-server, including > a number of security fixes. The patch has been pending for about 17 > days now, and while the QA badge reports "failed" I just spot-checked > some of the failures and they seem to be unrelated (e.g. a lot of > builds going from unknown to blocked or vice versa, the one new > failure for aarch64 being a large download test in the onionshare > package, etc). > Thanks for the update. Yes, QA looked good to me too, all things considered. > Is there anything I can do to help the process along? It may also be > worth noting that "guix refresh -l xorg-server" reports 125 rebuilds. > I also checked and the update to xorg-server does not appear to alter > the derivation for the xorg-server-for-tests (which is still at > version 21.1.1). > > Cheers, > Kaelyn No, you did exactly what you needed to. I did see this patch when it came in and was just giving a bit for QA to do the builds. That took longer, I got distracted hoping I could merge mesa-updates first, then hit CI delays...all that is to say I should have communicated I had this on my radar. Sorry about that! I appreciate the patch and the nudge. Pushed as 06e0f638abd36f816a221af4542ca4a850d7af2d with a minor tweak to the commit message to note [security fixes] at the top. I built it locally for x86_64 with mesa-updates merged. Which reminds me to make sure we have a way to flagging security updates just like other teams/tags and get them priority. Now on the security team, it is a first priority. Thanks again! John
diff --git a/gnu/packages/xorg.scm b/gnu/packages/xorg.scm index f65ffa7476..b30e5c1f07 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/xorg.scm +++ b/gnu/packages/xorg.scm @@ -5029,7 +5029,7 @@ (define-public libxcvt (define-public xorg-server (package (name "xorg-server") - (version "21.1.4") + (version "21.1.9") (source (origin (method url-fetch) @@ -5037,7 +5037,7 @@ (define-public xorg-server "/xserver/xorg-server-" version ".tar.xz")) (sha256 (base32 - "11y5w6z3rz3i4jyv0wc3scd2jh3bsmcklq0fm7a5invywj7bxi2w")) + "0fjk9ggcrn96blq0bm80739yj23s3gjjjsc0nxk4jk0v07i7nsgz")) (patches (list ;; See: