[PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
4 participants
  • Clément Lassieur
  • Leo Famulari
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Nicolas Goaziou
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Clément Lassieur
Severity
normal
C
C
Clément Lassieur wrote on 26 Nov 2017 18:07
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)(address . mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr)
20171126170755.10891-1-clement@lassieur.org
* gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-org-contrib)[source]: Fix sha256 checksum.
---
gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Toggle diff (15 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
index acd6ec30a..7e16c8b4b 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
@@ -4230,7 +4230,7 @@ reproducible research.")
(package-version emacs-org) ".tar"))
(sha256
(base32
- "0xy2xrndlhs4kyvh6mmv24dnh3fn5p63d2gaimnrypf1p8znwzh4"))))
+ "071vqv6hdyjp85ap39930782ks07ypjzch81r8kax3ybwfrf0chx"))))
(arguments
`(#:modules ((guix build emacs-build-system)
(guix build utils)
--
2.15.0
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 26 Nov 2017 21:51
(name . Clément Lassieur)(address . clement@lassieur.org)(address . 29457@debbugs.gnu.org)
20171126205102.GA6880@jasmine.lan
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 06:07:55PM +0100, Clément Lassieur wrote:
Toggle quote (2 lines)
> * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-org-contrib)[source]: Fix sha256 checksum.

Can you add a reminder comment to emacs-org so that this doesn't happen
again? :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=GQe3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 26 Nov 2017 23:15
(address . 29457@debbugs.gnu.org)
87wp2cu1o2.fsf@gnu.org
Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (16 lines)
> * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-org-contrib)[source]: Fix sha256 checksum.
> ---
> gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> index acd6ec30a..7e16c8b4b 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> @@ -4230,7 +4230,7 @@ reproducible research.")
> (package-version emacs-org) ".tar"))
> (sha256
> (base32
> - "0xy2xrndlhs4kyvh6mmv24dnh3fn5p63d2gaimnrypf1p8znwzh4"))))
> + "071vqv6hdyjp85ap39930782ks07ypjzch81r8kax3ybwfrf0chx"))))

Was the SHA256 simply erroneous, or was the file modified in-place
upstream?

It’s a good idea to investigate a bit in such cases IMO.

Ludo’.
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 26 Nov 2017 23:35
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)
20171126223521.GA17517@jasmine.lan
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:15:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Toggle quote (23 lines)
> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> skribis:
>
> > * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-org-contrib)[source]: Fix sha256 checksum.
> > ---
> > gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> > index acd6ec30a..7e16c8b4b 100644
> > --- a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> > +++ b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> > @@ -4230,7 +4230,7 @@ reproducible research.")
> > (package-version emacs-org) ".tar"))
> > (sha256
> > (base32
> > - "0xy2xrndlhs4kyvh6mmv24dnh3fn5p63d2gaimnrypf1p8znwzh4"))))
> > + "071vqv6hdyjp85ap39930782ks07ypjzch81r8kax3ybwfrf0chx"))))
>
> Was the SHA256 simply erroneous, or was the file modified in-place
> upstream?
>
> It’s a good idea to investigate a bit in such cases IMO.

I assumed this was a case where a package FOO inherits another package
BAR's version, and BAR was updated, leaving FOO with a broken source.

Otherwise, yes, all hash mismatches should be investigated and reported
upstream.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=CJmW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


C
C
Clément Lassieur wrote on 28 Nov 2017 03:43
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)
87a7z7f7hn.fsf@lassieur.org
Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
Toggle quote (13 lines)
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:15:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>> Was the SHA256 simply erroneous, or was the file modified in-place
>> upstream?
>>
>> It’s a good idea to investigate a bit in such cases IMO.
>
> I assumed this was a case where a package FOO inherits another package
> BAR's version, and BAR was updated, leaving FOO with a broken source.
>
> Otherwise, yes, all hash mismatches should be investigated and reported
> upstream.

Exactly. I'll put a comment, as suggested by Leo, so that we don't
forget to update it anymore.

Thanks,
Clément
C
C
Clément Lassieur wrote on 28 Nov 2017 03:56
control message for bug #29457
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87609vf6w5.fsf@lassieur.org
tags 29457 fixed
close 29457
N
N
Nicolas Goaziou wrote on 28 Nov 2017 18:00
Re: [bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.
(name . Clément Lassieur)(address . clement@lassieur.org)
87induqqwq.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr
Hello,

Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:

Toggle quote (17 lines)
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:15:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>
>>> Was the SHA256 simply erroneous, or was the file modified in-place
>>> upstream?
>>>
>>> It’s a good idea to investigate a bit in such cases IMO.
>>
>> I assumed this was a case where a package FOO inherits another package
>> BAR's version, and BAR was updated, leaving FOO with a broken source.
>>
>> Otherwise, yes, all hash mismatches should be investigated and reported
>> upstream.
>
> Exactly. I'll put a comment, as suggested by Leo, so that we don't
> forget to update it anymore.

But wouldn't it make more sense, in this case, to merge both packages
and let "contrib" be an output for emacs-org?

Regards,

--
Nicolas Goaziou 0x80A93738
C
C
Clément Lassieur wrote on 10 Dec 2017 15:33
(name . Nicolas Goaziou)(address . mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr)
87wp1utzyz.fsf@lassieur.org
Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

Toggle quote (24 lines)
> Hello,
>
> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
>
>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:15:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Was the SHA256 simply erroneous, or was the file modified in-place
>>>> upstream?
>>>>
>>>> It’s a good idea to investigate a bit in such cases IMO.
>>>
>>> I assumed this was a case where a package FOO inherits another package
>>> BAR's version, and BAR was updated, leaving FOO with a broken source.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, yes, all hash mismatches should be investigated and reported
>>> upstream.
>>
>> Exactly. I'll put a comment, as suggested by Leo, so that we don't
>> forget to update it anymore.
>
> But wouldn't it make more sense, in this case, to merge both packages
> and let "contrib" be an output for emacs-org?

Indeed, to me it makes sense, but Leo knows much more than me about
packages, so I cc'ed him.
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 19 Dec 2017 17:36
(name . Clément Lassieur)(address . clement@lassieur.org)
20171219163619.GC32288@jasmine.lan
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 03:33:08PM +0100, Clément Lassieur wrote:
Toggle quote (7 lines)
> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> > But wouldn't it make more sense, in this case, to merge both packages
> > and let "contrib" be an output for emacs-org?
>
> Indeed, to me it makes sense, but Leo knows much more than me about
> packages, so I cc'ed him.

I think it's a matter of taste, depending on the package. I'm not
familiar with the Emacs packages, so I leave it up to you Emacs users :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=zPS6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


?