[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-----

iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlobQaUACgkQJkb6MLrK
fwg5JxAAyTxLtT3AyR7SkszquPgJZUuAvpCbAOOikioFc2DK8EWCw6Q0ylv12QAQ
NtLKuzhEYpaOt8q9aVlVXlZjGU49TqZ+gOCfElPlxwv7ZfiucfpKIiRqA8/sKaUa
gLeF/L4lOpBqajJUeOZSM56qrRn+W8R0WjgSjWkuZc0kaJst00jrbQEK6hNLOdZP
oJOO/WpUKPx8dIff2m4jYvx8zKPk4ErtQFRrWhZP0Rr33UY5if/VT1LUfRqVnSTS
dwcWl+Koc3xAFmJmZJRxyB4cI2bUE/BuwCVlQuubCHkhckRvaXBuK751JwYiOJXk
lGNVj0j1BDJeYalGdkBH18tc19QG8IO1IqCO3jP0GsQhPRQEIbJCj2huCcwl1+w3
cOkcvPdmU31pHkEjmwSPbB5aHz6am64isxLEdowpYbB4ogkSKe3zsbCPIkis9VNP
zGsSfh9AT/RQTSE5PCKDYByg24dtHoSx35hBQbjxEPfwdbwreD7aO+ODIsR7SYPd
gPa6BQefqxSKMKLSap7df7BpiXJ0mfNzmRKc3c8RPneOgqi7B/rf7KYn00msyE/b
VNEgVBCbUZfhYNUemU4v3igY5LoG/uyoDrfYeumRPoBavpmopBkwD48iNO7edvon
8AqFIfeABC44o7mPsYykHhHyOgq+FRQQ28EGy0XAd2ZkP5x1fcM=
=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-----


?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 29457@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 29457
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch