-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
networkmanager: 1.12.2 -> 1.14.4 #51122
Conversation
No attempt on x86_64-darwin (full log) The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
Failure on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
Timed out, unknown build status on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
Should we update to the latest stable v1.14.4 instead? That's the latest stable according to https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/NetworkManager. |
Not sure? Bumped to 1.14.4 for testing right after submitting this PR,
"so far so good"-- so it's not entirely broken/incompatible anyway.
However they do maintain separate major branches which could just be
"considerate" but also may indicate they expect major upgrades not to be
taken lightly (but still want to send fixes)... or some combination :).
Even so, it does make sense to move to the version marked "stable".
What do you think? Anyone else?
…On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:25:02 -0800, Wael Nasreddine ***@***.***> wrote:
Should we update to the latest stable v1.14.4 instead? That's the latest stable according to https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/NetworkManager.
--
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#51122 (comment) part: text/html
|
I think we should update to 1.14.4. Many people run on -unstable and would be awesome to get it tested this early in the release. |
Great! I'll switch to it for a few days to make sure it's fine. |
No attempt on x86_64-darwin (full log) The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
@dtzWill The following patch is not applying on my side (fetchurl {
url = https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/commit/0a3755c1799d3a4dc1875d4c59c7c568a64c8456.patch;
sha256 = "af1717f7c6fdd6dadb4082dd847f4bbc42cf1574833299f3e47024e785533f2e";
})
|
Timed out, unknown build status on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
9cb55fb
to
d0fded6
Compare
@dtzWill I removed the patch and it worked for me. I pushed the fix to your branch. EDIT: Feel free to squash the commits back into one. |
No attempt on x86_64-darwin (full log) The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
Failure on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
Success on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
Timed out, unknown build status on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: networkmanager Partial log (click to expand)
|
I'm switching to the newest network-manager so I can give NixOS/nixpkgs#51122 full QA.
cc @jtojnar |
This misses some paths, I think, and doesn't appear to include the ipv6 CVE? (although this might already be handled or picked already) The release numbering here is confusing :(. Anyway what I really came here to say was that 1.12.6 is out as of early December-- perhaps we should just move to that instead (or in the meantime)? |
re:paths, the ethtool/sed are expected to be on PATH instead of in particular locations, so our substituteInPlace commands don't touch them up. If the PATH assumption is okay that's fine otherwise it's easy enough to fix. Also there's references to |
I fixed the paths issue. |
e8ed23d
to
7c3e55d
Compare
As for the CVE, according to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1639067#c15, it only applies to internal DHCP implementation; we use dhclient instead. |
I would say so, 1.14 is the current stable branch. |
7c3e55d
to
9187187
Compare
I've cleaned up the history and I added 9187187 |
The new fix-paths.patch and the fetchpatch conflict; I think we can just use the local one. Not sure why borg isn't seeing a build failure as a result? |
So far so good, FWIW! :) |
159a493
to
36c5f30
Compare
Motivation for this change
1.12.4 info:
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)