Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:20:09 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: recent updates Galaxy, On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 11:00:34AM +0400, (GalaxyMaster) wrote: > I see that you've started to updated packages. I hope I am done with pre-branching package updates, if I manage to find time to create a 3.1 branch soon enough. > This makes my life a bit > harder since I need to double-check and correct my patches. For > example, I had an update to gnupg and now I need to compare that > cumulative patch from ALT with all patches I have in my package in > order to see whether there is something missing or not. This is not > that important but adds some workload where it could have been avoided. I actually thought of this aspect before making this update myself, and decided to proceed anyway. If I saw you around at this very moment in jabber, I would probably coordinate with you, but since you were not around it was quicker for me to just proceed. I guess your GnuPG update was probably to 1.4.17 rather than .18, and I doubt you had a CHANGES-current entry listing the CVEs and brief descriptions. If you didn't add any new patches when updating GnuPG, then you don't need to review the ALT patch now: I already did. > As of beginning of July my first batch of changes to Owl was compiling > flawlessly (under 10 iterations of 'make buildworld' to bring the system > to a state where everything is updated). Great! This is on 32-bit only, right? We still haven't coordinated with you on your access to a machine for the 64-bit test rebuilds. > Another problem is that I performed extensive tests on rebuilding the > whole Owl userland with my updated packages. Now, these updates render > my tests obsolete since I need to rebuild everything again just to > ensure that whatever has been changed is not broken by my updates. :( That's life. Two or four more rebuilds (i686 and x86_64, maybe repeated) aren't that difficult to do. > I wish you've spent this time to branch Owl as we discussed, so I could > commit my part. You could just have said that you need gnupg updated > and it would have been done instantly (since my goal was to do updates > of the userland and I clearly allocated time for this). That's how it looks from your perspective, but for me it was preferable to include these minor updates before the branching point. > I still have a week to commit and fix whatever breaks as the result, but > then I'll be likely unavailable for several months. It's just a bit sad > that I've spent almost 2 months to make this update and I cannot commit. > Moreover, I'm afraid if I do not commit it soon we will just lose it. Understood. I'll plan to approve your commits before the end of this week. Thanks, Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.