Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:56:51PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: >>> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> 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? >>> > >>> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ed/2017-01/msg00000.html >>> >>> 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’. > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-10/msg00933.html
When I first built it on 'master', Guix went ahead and downloaded the bootstrap binaries, so I suspect `guix refresh` fails to recognize the full scope of this update. 'ed' is used as a native-input for 'patch', could that be related?
Description: PGP signature