From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:44:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version? Resent-From: John Kehayias Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:48:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 62513 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 62513@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Maxim Cournoyer X-Debbugs-Original-To: Guix Bugs Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.168006885631253 (code B ref -1); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:48:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2023 05:47:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51134 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phOel-00087w-IO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:47:36 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:57780) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phOeg-00087Z-Jw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:47:34 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1phOeg-0002lU-6n for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:47:30 -0400 Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.133]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1phOed-0004N4-U5 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:47:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:47:18 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1680068843; x=1680328043; bh=LcoSPYaxkvRnLu5E3PkeFjE1rzwfgoqaAg/EPYSsVNo=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date: Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=wxw9kh7/ecFgJraW6Ayc5vxdVmbgVtMEZV2oIWRqZKCW5yfE74NChMPmk2IMpESfH MNT3eSpOD06h+2SEmmodiZT/ug5NZeX2VTtH78jrgSNxsIXw3t7MbXj0Lmx9cUT0Kp dGAqoaWICpX8HwcKSiARI0AQ6duq1CBibAg+6PjD1lB0PdLTfTmY9tGWLkclEpJcXq S03HGLYSwJUxQeNJmEO1RbRCG2GJDm8IvqqB/xEVSiassOXePjfEdNR6WBvYZRpS0O nPZmNGsT3dl9t7ViYX2dpQdCszrBfUFbZAb3zQ6ieYHxD2c+K/VP2z5O0qUbBJNqbj 86973zlJC8rWA== From: John Kehayias Message-ID: <87r0t8f6sb.fsf@protonmail.com> Feedback-ID: 7805494:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.133; envelope-from=john.kehayias@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40133.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) 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: -2.3 (--) Hi Guix, (cc'ing Maxim as author of last few network-manager version updates.) I noticed a recent up date to network-manager to 1.43.4 (previously 1.41.2 = and 1.40.0) but can't find a record of that release. In their docs there is= no mention of anything newer than the 1.42 release [0, 1] and they mention= the even-numbered releases being the stable series [2]. Indeed, Arch only = has 1.42.4 in their repos [3]. I only see "dev" tags for these 1.43 version= s in their gitlab. Should we be on a 1.42.y version instead? I noticed this because the update to 1.43.4 has an issue with my (wired) co= nnection not resuming from sleep when previously it did. I have to restart = the service. I had some logs I can dig up, but in discussing on IRC (no log= s that day it seems) there was nothing out of the ordinary and the shepherd= service seemed normal. I've since reconfigured to a commit before the most recent version change, = namely 5174820753be045ba4fc7cc93da33f4e0b730bc3 and cannot reproduce the is= sue so seems due to newer versions of network-manager after 1.41.2 at least= . Note that this may have been reported upstream [4], but I haven't tested wi= th the current stable release. So this may be a separate (upstream) issue. Anyway, the first question is what version we should have of network-manage= r? Thanks! John [0 ] [1] [2] [3] [4] From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:44:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version? Resent-From: Maxim Cournoyer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:43:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62513 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: John Kehayias Cc: 62513@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 62513-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62513.168009374117974 (code B ref 62513); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:43:01 +0000 Received: (at 62513) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2023 12:42:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51471 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phV89-0004fp-1l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:42:21 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f171.google.com ([209.85.160.171]:39790) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phV87-0004fY-3u for 62513@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:42:20 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f171.google.com with SMTP id a5so14948828qto.6 for <62513@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:42:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680093733; x=1682685733; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=T1zFfMGSwh1JjUBs5gL3F9Ls2ObDPtEn6djxhyzCiK0=; b=XjJ7qcXiPk8szgWOf4bjOzpDQHsf9dCJJSQYR4Mm1/bDMv4pZre0JZFLAEKnGI7f52 cn2HOfmk/Efdd/Bt++qNt+/gmT9fQSYMN59cU5IJqoX30C3TJQoX2pHH6nAV4peaS8TR N/KSZQrsJivarXpvB3z991TvrFAmTZtwmcLldgflHN0Mlyw0RGRSpZlJFhnfF+Ge3ZLD xPAFWvvWirIAnrMCKWt06YL1lzvjyeeL9JwKKWmacb4DsY3BQDGDchDL7+Awn9stUQnC 5h4s6b0CY1bwPxS0zF4UQbPdm7Z0q5xQV89UPBxJX1Hjhk4hhbkBeK7kO/AB8147Wh6j wOvA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680093733; x=1682685733; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=T1zFfMGSwh1JjUBs5gL3F9Ls2ObDPtEn6djxhyzCiK0=; b=MvnqLzx2z4a3+xwS9ze/g63UoBxBQTSyT4R2tUQA1P2pR9M16D91bBZcSva/AZxHXk 2EybDegUNQVcki/dkb2KPOPcixRf9lo3RY2FIeOV0ECSov8CxS2p7s3zGepNMts/FCDY FIQMRjUi5JpLx/O8pe9QUjjLxOypS+3zc9N8PxX1CdhwqIIA1ZiU6QUEVoMj9fMf/i5k evhfG8Tgb0XJPST9XUP8fLBY0hc3JwL9hswLXKJeVBRk558WomWsoc1WhtvTKII3qb2S E87QoU/zae90LZJyJTAN6Oxxh/ZLN0jd6Z/InFZRGkafazIxWVT/93c2uH4HI+RMVWHB 5fIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXbzGl825KdKVP1JMKuD0lHKSI5fQgewxDMDxsFFXTeHIcdut9Y tfqPCyPbDr6Nzr+jitZ9NQvCpiSQrTopcA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/LhlkJ/HfevlkstAcL962GRUiCd82I2LQIbcxGiZgwatSlrQtpxDFq34+5xW92irizLE5Cyg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:651:b0:3b9:b6e3:c78e with SMTP id a17-20020a05622a065100b003b9b6e3c78emr35165911qtb.8.1680093733087; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurd (dsl-10-133-241.b2b2c.ca. [72.10.133.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 137-20020a37058f000000b0074688f55beesm13156301qkf.108.2023.03.29.05.42.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:42:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Cournoyer References: <87r0t8f6sb.fsf@protonmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:42:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r0t8f6sb.fsf@protonmail.com> (John Kehayias's message of "Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:47:18 +0000") Message-ID: <87fs9n3f18.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: -1.0 (-) Hi John, John Kehayias writes: > Hi Guix, > > (cc'ing Maxim as author of last few network-manager version updates.) > > I noticed a recent up date to network-manager to 1.43.4 (previously > 1.41.2 and 1.40.0) but can't find a record of that release. In their > docs there is no mention of anything newer than the 1.42 release [0, > 1] and they mention the even-numbered releases being the stable series > [2]. Indeed, Arch only has 1.42.4 in their repos [3]. I only see "dev" > tags for these 1.43 versions in their gitlab. > > Should we be on a 1.42.y version instead? The GNOME versioning scheme is a bit of a mess; they stopped using stable/unstable oven/odd release cycles since GNOME 40 I think, but left each of the components the luxury to keep using it, which NetworkManager appears to be doing. 'guix refresh -u' picked 1.43 and I didn't give it much of an thought. In general, I think it's OK to carry the "unstable" releases of GNOME components, which in my experience are usually stable :-). > I noticed this because the update to 1.43.4 has an issue with my > (wired) connection not resuming from sleep when previously it did. I > have to restart the service. I had some logs I can dig up, but in > discussing on IRC (no logs that day it seems) there was nothing out of > the ordinary and the shepherd service seemed normal. > > I've since reconfigured to a commit before the most recent version > change, namely 5174820753be045ba4fc7cc93da33f4e0b730bc3 and cannot > reproduce the issue so seems due to newer versions of network-manager > after 1.41.2 at least. > > Note that this may have been reported upstream [4], but I haven't > tested with the current stable release. So this may be a separate > (upstream) issue. So it seems that even if we used the "stable" 1.42.x release, we'd still have this problem. It's been reported 4 days ago; I guess let's wait to see if a hotfix will be made, as that seems a serious issue. Otherwise, if many Guix users are affected and no hotfix is on the horizon, we could consider reverting back to our older version. Does that sound reasonable? -- Thanks, Maxim From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:44:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version? Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:40:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62513 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Maxim Cournoyer Cc: John Kehayias , 62513@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 62513-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62513.1680097177502 (code B ref 62513); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:40:01 +0000 Received: (at 62513) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2023 13:39:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51532 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phW1Z-000081-09 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 09:39:37 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37806) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phW1X-00007p-Bz for 62513@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 09:39:35 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1phW1R-0005i7-UM; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 09:39:29 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:To: From; bh=xhs5cr/9oLMgMyCBd7Hj5RLS1gVFXwnGNktDNrytLyA=; b=NtAhZZVAdRlA+mwz8V1J M8HP1bqi7KezempSSKXJy7/gjI+Ah1NuCg3BW26xyAgRcyZo27urUaRuVsgBt1G8HH2SnVJxxh4BK KbY7Ax/sExlDQT7pubGs/WiG8EMdZtn2MxBbbmv1e0WsTGpLChXRaIejeOprFWLH+B2ArTXsOud4v 7433SdYt3U+ZvwbmhfEwMqd0As6/LbPEr2Tjt8D2ohr6+ji8LhCUR20y41xW57h/JSyczEyQ8lp1/ yg1yxYPmIcdizRn96pI4YKPh1fkZaD/SVvJ59KlVKCK8XsLmGRLFklfCRvDsWC3WMCAX2dUh1Jv6b 57TO1q8+KkHdCg==; Received: from gw.lipn.univ-paris13.fr ([194.254.163.15] helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1phW1R-0006YZ-Hl; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 09:39:29 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <87r0t8f6sb.fsf@protonmail.com> <87fs9n3f18.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:39:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87fs9n3f18.fsf@gmail.com> (Maxim Cournoyer's message of "Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:42:11 -0400") Message-ID: <87ilej7k34.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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: -3.3 (---) Hi, Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > The GNOME versioning scheme is a bit of a mess; they stopped using > stable/unstable oven/odd release cycles since GNOME 40 I think, but left > each of the components the luxury to keep using it, which NetworkManager > appears to be doing. Could the weird nm-applet schema discrepancy found in be related to that? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:44:00 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version? Resent-From: Csepp Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 12:28:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62513 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Maxim Cournoyer Cc: john.kehayias@protonmail.com, 62513@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: John Kehayias , bug-guix@gnu.org, 62513@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.168017924110532 (code B ref -1); Thu, 30 Mar 2023 12:28:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2023 12:27:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55977 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phrNA-0002jo-Kv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:27:21 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:39820) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phrN9-0002jg-91 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:27:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1phrN4-00080F-KG for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:27:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1phrN2-0000eB-Ot for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 08:27:14 -0400 Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.riseup.net", Issuer "R3" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4PnN304PQrzDqG3; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 12:27:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1680179228; bh=3lXGMFCVj2a5SwsVmL7QgYASUyuSrPrQCwdGKsYTcw4=; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:From; b=r6fLONWL/1DaDZJzsq1BNvtHvkoRhHUAhsxvu5YC0zAgcXjxrWy9BaK7/SOy8lL9h rZ/yBWPGJ4acebc01l0QC/1NPLRNtgqRqPQoD2FDuTjIAWefJ23Ittj1VlZy7TnEv4 8eZ9LwZHa2Op7UguPQr/pwbsP2mfngRWgHCd01ak= X-Riseup-User-ID: ED70FE888C473AC2D3CE6B9D8174885B744421A08AF386EF77DB0CF18F267D64 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4PnN2z6VvKz20bj; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 12:27:07 +0000 (UTC) References: <87r0t8f6sb.fsf@protonmail.com> <87fs9n3f18.fsf@gmail.com> From: Csepp Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 14:25:08 +0200 In-reply-to: <87fs9n3f18.fsf@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87ileiifvz.fsf@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=raingloom@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) 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: -2.4 (--) Maxim Cournoyer writes: > Hi John, > > John Kehayias writes: > >> Hi Guix, >> >> (cc'ing Maxim as author of last few network-manager version updates.) >> >> I noticed a recent up date to network-manager to 1.43.4 (previously >> 1.41.2 and 1.40.0) but can't find a record of that release. In their >> docs there is no mention of anything newer than the 1.42 release [0, >> 1] and they mention the even-numbered releases being the stable series >> [2]. Indeed, Arch only has 1.42.4 in their repos [3]. I only see "dev" >> tags for these 1.43 versions in their gitlab. >> >> Should we be on a 1.42.y version instead? > > The GNOME versioning scheme is a bit of a mess; they stopped using > stable/unstable oven/odd release cycles since GNOME 40 I think, but left > each of the components the luxury to keep using it, which NetworkManager > appears to be doing. > > 'guix refresh -u' picked 1.43 and I didn't give it much of an thought. > In general, I think it's OK to carry the "unstable" releases of GNOME > components, which in my experience are usually stable :-). > >> I noticed this because the update to 1.43.4 has an issue with my >> (wired) connection not resuming from sleep when previously it did. I >> have to restart the service. I had some logs I can dig up, but in >> discussing on IRC (no logs that day it seems) there was nothing out of >> the ordinary and the shepherd service seemed normal. >> >> I've since reconfigured to a commit before the most recent version >> change, namely 5174820753be045ba4fc7cc93da33f4e0b730bc3 and cannot >> reproduce the issue so seems due to newer versions of network-manager >> after 1.41.2 at least. >> >> Note that this may have been reported upstream [4], but I haven't >> tested with the current stable release. So this may be a separate >> (upstream) issue. > > So it seems that even if we used the "stable" 1.42.x release, we'd still > have this problem. It's been reported 4 days ago; I guess let's wait to > see if a hotfix will be made, as that seems a serious issue. > > Otherwise, if many Guix users are affected and no hotfix is on the > horizon, we could consider reverting back to our older version. > > Does that sound reasonable? This also affects two of my recently reconfigured/upgraded machines. My guess is there are probably many others affected. From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:44:00 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: John Kehayias Subject: bug#62513: closed (Re: bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version?) Message-ID: References: <87y1neyp9t.fsf@gmail.com> <87r0t8f6sb.fsf@protonmail.com> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 62513 X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix Reply-To: 62513@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 20:10:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1680207002-15120-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1680207002-15120-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #62513: network-manager updated to unstable version? which was filed against the guix package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 62513@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 62513: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D62513 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1680207002-15120-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 62513-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Mar 2023 20:10:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59488 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phyau-0003vb-9J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 16:10:00 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f170.google.com ([209.85.160.170]:36691) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phyas-0003vJ-9c for 62513-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 16:09:58 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f170.google.com with SMTP id hf2so19706536qtb.3 for <62513-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680206992; x=1682798992; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=knnDH1+TzXjhmMS4/z34NB9e/f1lPIT95UduLV+mhiw=; b=pwrxkZ8MMdYCSOCartKV5y24fr62e/0LYj8qixKOCQys+ep2DPee9koVl9thbSglOo 8TkTuOpdnOxJvHPicaln6YjVhehw6VSI2gx/ML4t9vnzGFrdMY7WFd0YV+jU2IjDZh3Q za2tXJ4ebldsp9TD5wF7SmPsQ39u7LTROIYKcLoJaBgITFg2XtH9msrffIsPUQBpIQ6t 9sWgGw+0hGWziSTxbYwsHKlv4yQgIoPJ5FaY4K2/i/93h+HvCzGswY/g2UtYnTlImH2F DxOjXIs1kqLyU81rZyEgaIOH8TcTQjsYTwozzzpSibI092hZHTsymhCyBFRPR/scZPj5 OD5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680206992; x=1682798992; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=knnDH1+TzXjhmMS4/z34NB9e/f1lPIT95UduLV+mhiw=; b=FlCQoPDY/8illW2QyTfzN/yRSXySImgjR6QV8B/L35jMQkfU8qQ2oMarlslWxs4Gw2 jIYERnJBRIseeePUNwAl8KPIQRICdXxhruoNzy2AXVVGrfEQXjYuGLOQ7lOyflagumOD SFKwXyFiNfawqee2iKf6ic2yTlCu05Dkyq1iMB8Z8PubKcVCv1/NIga4pYkbyz5cIfDN wHBqyHHEx+hD/rytRqfe2CGidLMPwdQBH5FkSSRODX906wx7cYv+V2o310aExNUxZHDG 3cptq4MbY5hx6+hMXVjTKcR6PtmEjyJrh8RwZPWiGNBK7QuO0dVuAOmOmHkXaz4cyHCL 7tTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWj2O7h8saDm172htmhRG37URm7ekpdgrtJXidNRtYYdk4Y2LXK 9MmJN/WOvb7CtjmasNxUeR0hzsCqmfI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8LANGBe3JHiJ9rI+q0LDLVWmsUBaL7YmgAnpzxEWEK33VXhy02zaeafZ+XAbcmWjM2+22Xbg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5b96:0:b0:3bf:c9d1:4276 with SMTP id a22-20020ac85b96000000b003bfc9d14276mr39308443qta.5.1680206992326; Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurd (dsl-10-133-241.b2b2c.ca. [72.10.133.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l21-20020ac87255000000b003d3b9f79b4asm98140qtp.68.2023.03.30.13.09.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Cournoyer To: Csepp Subject: Re: bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version? References: <87r0t8f6sb.fsf@protonmail.com> <87fs9n3f18.fsf@gmail.com> <87ileiifvz.fsf@riseup.net> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 16:09:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ileiifvz.fsf@riseup.net> (Csepp's message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2023 14:25:08 +0200") Message-ID: <87y1neyp9t.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62513-done Cc: john.kehayias@protonmail.com, 62513-done@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: -1.0 (-) Hi, Csepp writes: > Maxim Cournoyer writes: > >> Hi John, >> >> John Kehayias writes: >> >>> Hi Guix, >>> >>> (cc'ing Maxim as author of last few network-manager version updates.) >>> >>> I noticed a recent up date to network-manager to 1.43.4 (previously >>> 1.41.2 and 1.40.0) but can't find a record of that release. In their >>> docs there is no mention of anything newer than the 1.42 release [0, >>> 1] and they mention the even-numbered releases being the stable series >>> [2]. Indeed, Arch only has 1.42.4 in their repos [3]. I only see "dev" >>> tags for these 1.43 versions in their gitlab. >>> >>> Should we be on a 1.42.y version instead? >> >> The GNOME versioning scheme is a bit of a mess; they stopped using >> stable/unstable oven/odd release cycles since GNOME 40 I think, but left >> each of the components the luxury to keep using it, which NetworkManager >> appears to be doing. >> >> 'guix refresh -u' picked 1.43 and I didn't give it much of an thought. >> In general, I think it's OK to carry the "unstable" releases of GNOME >> components, which in my experience are usually stable :-). >> >>> I noticed this because the update to 1.43.4 has an issue with my >>> (wired) connection not resuming from sleep when previously it did. I >>> have to restart the service. I had some logs I can dig up, but in >>> discussing on IRC (no logs that day it seems) there was nothing out of >>> the ordinary and the shepherd service seemed normal. >>> >>> I've since reconfigured to a commit before the most recent version >>> change, namely 5174820753be045ba4fc7cc93da33f4e0b730bc3 and cannot >>> reproduce the issue so seems due to newer versions of network-manager >>> after 1.41.2 at least. >>> >>> Note that this may have been reported upstream [4], but I haven't >>> tested with the current stable release. So this may be a separate >>> (upstream) issue. >> >> So it seems that even if we used the "stable" 1.42.x release, we'd still >> have this problem. It's been reported 4 days ago; I guess let's wait to >> see if a hotfix will be made, as that seems a serious issue. >> >> Otherwise, if many Guix users are affected and no hotfix is on the >> horizon, we could consider reverting back to our older version. >> >> Does that sound reasonable? > > This also affects two of my recently reconfigured/upgraded machines. My > guess is there are probably many others affected. I take this as a "no" :-). Reverted with be5e280e5fe26f93bd5a6e3f76e4502edb913a94. Closing. -- Thanks, Maxim ------------=_1680207002-15120-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Mar 2023 05:47:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51134 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phOel-00087w-IO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:47:36 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:57780) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1phOeg-00087Z-Jw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:47:34 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1phOeg-0002lU-6n for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:47:30 -0400 Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.133]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1phOed-0004N4-U5 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 01:47:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 05:47:18 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1680068843; x=1680328043; bh=LcoSPYaxkvRnLu5E3PkeFjE1rzwfgoqaAg/EPYSsVNo=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date: Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=wxw9kh7/ecFgJraW6Ayc5vxdVmbgVtMEZV2oIWRqZKCW5yfE74NChMPmk2IMpESfH MNT3eSpOD06h+2SEmmodiZT/ug5NZeX2VTtH78jrgSNxsIXw3t7MbXj0Lmx9cUT0Kp dGAqoaWICpX8HwcKSiARI0AQ6duq1CBibAg+6PjD1lB0PdLTfTmY9tGWLkclEpJcXq S03HGLYSwJUxQeNJmEO1RbRCG2GJDm8IvqqB/xEVSiassOXePjfEdNR6WBvYZRpS0O nPZmNGsT3dl9t7ViYX2dpQdCszrBfUFbZAb3zQ6ieYHxD2c+K/VP2z5O0qUbBJNqbj 86973zlJC8rWA== To: Guix Bugs From: John Kehayias Subject: network-manager updated to unstable version? Message-ID: <87r0t8f6sb.fsf@protonmail.com> Feedback-ID: 7805494:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.133; envelope-from=john.kehayias@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40133.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: Maxim Cournoyer 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: -2.3 (--) Hi Guix, (cc'ing Maxim as author of last few network-manager version updates.) I noticed a recent up date to network-manager to 1.43.4 (previously 1.41.2 = and 1.40.0) but can't find a record of that release. In their docs there is= no mention of anything newer than the 1.42 release [0, 1] and they mention= the even-numbered releases being the stable series [2]. Indeed, Arch only = has 1.42.4 in their repos [3]. I only see "dev" tags for these 1.43 version= s in their gitlab. Should we be on a 1.42.y version instead? I noticed this because the update to 1.43.4 has an issue with my (wired) co= nnection not resuming from sleep when previously it did. I have to restart = the service. I had some logs I can dig up, but in discussing on IRC (no log= s that day it seems) there was nothing out of the ordinary and the shepherd= service seemed normal. I've since reconfigured to a commit before the most recent version change, = namely 5174820753be045ba4fc7cc93da33f4e0b730bc3 and cannot reproduce the is= sue so seems due to newer versions of network-manager after 1.41.2 at least= . Note that this may have been reported upstream [4], but I haven't tested wi= th the current stable release. So this may be a separate (upstream) issue. Anyway, the first question is what version we should have of network-manage= r? Thanks! John [0 ] [1] [2] [3] [4] ------------=_1680207002-15120-1--