Hi, On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 23:53, Rostislav Svoboda wrote: > substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0% > substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0% > substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0% > \sha256 hash mismatch for > /gnu/store/n2d3rwbvrlag5c1spv1b73vvg9w2r8cw-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz: > expected hash: 113nlmidxy9kjr45kg9x3ngar4951mvag1js2a3j8nxcz34wxsv4 > actual hash: 1sb0709wirgkag5zcv8c72l4xc5g4qhr6syxf8w8i4vhnjsdg2hp > hash mismatch for store item > '/gnu/store/n2d3rwbvrlag5c1spv1b73vvg9w2r8cw-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz' > build of /gnu/store/xijrkm01sqviaqkgfd1r7gjipzpfxkbz-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz.drv > failed Well, I do not know what happened. It works for me and I get: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ guix build /gnu/store/xijrkm01sqviaqkgfd1r7gjipzpfxkbz-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz.drv 1.2 MB will be downloaded: /gnu/store/n2d3rwbvrlag5c1spv1b73vvg9w2r8cw-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz substituting /gnu/store/n2d3rwbvrlag5c1spv1b73vvg9w2r8cw-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz... downloading from https://ci.guix.gnu.org/nar/n2d3rwbvrlag5c1spv1b73vvg9w2r8cw-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz ... autoconf-2.69.tar.xz 1.2MiB 533KiB/s 00:02 [##################] 100.0% /gnu/store/n2d3rwbvrlag5c1spv1b73vvg9w2r8cw-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz $ guix hash /gnu/store/n2d3rwbvrlag5c1spv1b73vvg9w2r8cw-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz 113nlmidxy9kjr45kg9x3ngar4951mvag1js2a3j8nxcz34wxsv4 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > View build log at > '/var/log/guix/drvs/xi/jrkm01sqviaqkgfd1r7gjipzpfxkbz-autoconf-2.69.tar.xz.drv.bz2'. > building /gnu/store/971s9hm3armq58qxfiigs1pkmc35ynj3-CUnit-2.1-3.tar.bz2.drv... > Backtrace: > 13 (primitive-load > "/gnu/store/45qgzlh67nvkwl7ms1g5h7nxq5yavw2i-compute-guix-derivation") [...] > guix pull: error: You found a bug: the program > '/gnu/store/45qgzlh67nvkwl7ms1g5h7nxq5yavw2i-compute-guix-derivation' > failed to compute the derivation for Guix (version: > "78d4a08ac3a1de481bc56eef967a2e5ed2a912d5"; system: "x86_64-linux"; > host version: "1.3.0"; pull-version: 1). > Please report the COMPLETE output above by email to . Well, I miss why a hash mismatch returns a backtrace and is not nicely handled. Hum, something similar had been reported in #59179 [1]. 1: Cheers, simon