From unknown Fri Aug 15 14:15:42 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#62513 <62513@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#62513 <62513@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: network-manager updated to unstable version? Reply-To: bug#62513 <62513@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:15:42 +0000 retitle 62513 network-manager updated to unstable version? reassign 62513 guix submitter 62513 John Kehayias severity 62513 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 29 01:47:36 2023 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] From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 29 08:42:21 2023 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 To: John Kehayias Subject: Re: network-manager updated to unstable version? 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62513 Cc: 62513@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 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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 29 09:39:37 2023 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: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version? 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62513 Cc: John Kehayias , 62513@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: -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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 30 08:27:21 2023 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 To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: bug#62513: network-manager updated to unstable version? 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: John Kehayias , bug-guix@gnu.org, 62513@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: -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 debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 30 16:10:00 2023 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 From unknown Fri Aug 15 14:15:42 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 11:24:06 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator