From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: bug#28659: v0.13: guix pull fails; libgit2-0.26.0 and 0.25.1 content hashes fail Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:47:06 -0400 Message-ID: <87infx2mmt.fsf@gmail.com> References: <877ewf18d4.fsf@gnu.org> <87wp4e8yk5.fsf@gnu.org> <20171001204237.GA11804@jasmine.lan> <87vajxoavx.fsf@gnu.org> <20171002181929.GA10773@jasmine.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59840) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dz9VN-0001T0-CR for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:48:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dz9VK-0001e1-A5 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:48:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:35983) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dz9VK-0001dN-5N for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:48:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dz9VJ-0000Se-Kf for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 18:48:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20171002181929.GA10773@jasmine.lan> (Leo Famulari's message of "Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:19:29 -0400") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Leo Famulari Cc: 28659@debbugs.gnu.org Leo Famulari writes: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 04:57:38PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Hi! >>=20 >> Leo Famulari skribis: >>=20 >> > I contacted GitHub about this issue a few weeks ago and they said that: >> > >> > 1) They do not guarantee bit-reproducibility of the snapshots they >> > generate automatically for each release tag, and they wish that people >> > would not rely on them as we do. However, since people *are* relying on >> > them, they are discussing this issue internally. >>=20 >> Oh?! Then we=E2=80=99re in trouble. > > I wonder, are there really that many affected packages? There's a list here: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/issues/18044, compiled by one of the homebrew project's maintainers. Maxim