From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 11 09:39:38 2020 Received: (at 43075) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Sep 2020 13:39:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43063 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGjH8-0001tM-58 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:39:38 -0400 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:59221) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGjH7-0001tB-5Q for 43075@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:39:37 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137C9B7B; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:39:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=HBeyz621o45PKGKIGGNRpvbP +oCWe5vzPAfvZ+o/6Ic=; b=zNpaIRc2m8R07KBu5X20apNNhC+cU8p8Nskufhku nNNVhihaquvurR3ZTWhygq7XSX5vD3vmd3OanVhXCWgOo9Q7KPPgIjZrEsmtb04E IEVmhMh+O3sz/D/1juvffZw2YDT9GiFLEakiz/dsVLdaj7LGA2VM/pf+nNlxdXqm +Ac= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=HBeyz6 21o45PKGKIGGNRpvbP+oCWe5vzPAfvZ+o/6Ic=; b=M+TeEGKMxPrvUx3YQ8MgNo VDlZzfBSRM559E0ID1yO3UFQE1REvp3EShRq5cNO3uJjmJ4YNVTl1no1d1vtJNkw RYqeBPJQM1PxE9byIRSDgWgoVWtKCo3ZBnru51nkLDluwCm5GtRdj9ESrI7VLnce 5T0osmAdoG9zj0o5XZmIv6vAIUlKvAcNJ8xZDHOpzOzbJIfGMJGkXWz9IXJsYy5d lnT/WGaGq9PmiYjNroOykKIasJ5rMqlKiMc13VxTcPa3a3atsY5ijim72gbbIuVh +g2E0t9hrc/kiuCYz/8fwMw78Qk+UqlVcwiKJEDodF8CQQkjYw22wWnsttgglbhg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudehledgieelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpedukeevgeetkeeltefgiedtjefgjeekffduteehvdfhueekudelieekjeefheff teenucfkphepjeefrddugedurdduvdejrddugeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (c-73-141-127-146.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.141.127.146]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D8E093280064; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:39:28 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: zimoun Subject: Re: bug#43075: Prioritize providing substitutes for security-critical packages with potentially long build times Message-ID: <20200911133928.GB32741@jasmine.lan> References: <2WPQFQ.3JQYOGZG7WXZ@riseup.net> <87bliejc3j.fsf@gnu.org> <878sdg7qej.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 43075 Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , chaosmonk , 43075@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) --d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:37:59AM +0200, zimoun wrote: > I understand the annoyance and the frustration of the substitutes > availability but I am not convinced that some packages have higher > priority on the substitute delivery than others. In general, I agree with you, especially since most packages do not really take very long to build if there are no substitutes available, or they do not change very often. However, I noticed today that we do not have substitutes for linux-libre 5.4.64, which was released upstream and added to Guix two days ago. In my experience, we have rarely required users to build linux-libre, and I think the current situation is a serious regression for our build farm. We should prioritize building the kernel. --d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAl9bfgoACgkQJkb6MLrK fwjxFw//b5Dgxnzf07qAqDAJ6ZrXxNFBIoG/bDJ1PJQAv/aAXG6dqlbzQHXga7+d cEtrXQWF1DyY47RCnNiu6Ap3/uCa+KeDPQM/gRzSQ2J0jIC2sbL7c9xLO/xB4+83 iVw92MYLamDqVcZnhiQovdvBZ4GrQ1WUR2ctM0fokcjbwVi/9GkMSVMfu/AF17Y3 1p1FyBd6pLPrbSVnE9VvyzCDXaQnCClOXnd3GLmyAy0DUcVFMujd0uY4poi8dQjT G63uCvEtgZO7N0e6XRIGRSpdIhYS1qS54MRX2opu2lgOqHQh3gilxtuEf1MuAyKu NmvCy5dJccqrzuxujWeyANw2wmFWqNKDCc7H6JWkaJEjZnP8JMp66D37iYQvXFfn CTi6pUG9RAoC+V/212fqura/niBizrIRLpQVVaAYV1u9SE9cHy/4LvRoJ6lXY0a2 BQgexnD8j0YBSO8I3X2+l2PMzRgMPoSVW2jSjsyeYETCyBbhwbLsV3vilThEj1SM DtlV7c2t7jct9jeJd0gGk2VKRLkbD9DXk4ZsFSh5iQ+b3AvSuKgPg2CatnwjjytU ZEPQs3X/26qIdag68H/Sqa1UVaZ7D/9x2SV3Fzled1O9nMucrtW8s08pOV43tHnm F/yfmCKntZaJakEkJtFsc6FKIpxQ/i/bVFpqwf9Y/4Qkt4yjRfc= =ADWQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND--