From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] gnu: compression: Add snappy. Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:25:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20160818012541.GA31426@jasmine> References: <87h9ajqkw1.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52005) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baC5p-0004TZ-8U for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:26:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baC5j-0002dE-5j for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:26:00 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:50964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baC5h-0002cY-Pj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 21:25:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: David Craven Cc: guix-devel , Alex Kost On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:20:42PM +0200, David Craven wrote: > Oh, that's embarrassing. I must have forgotten to change the hash and > guix cached the tarball. Is that possible? If the hash is matched in the store, the URL is not used, so you won't see an incorrect URL fail to match the hash. This is a common cause of buggy patches. I wonder, are there any drawbacks of making the linter check that the URL provides the data named by the hash?