From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Craven Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] gnu: compression: Add snappy. Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:41:44 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87h9ajqkw1.fsf@gmail.com> <87pop6pmnl.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57009) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baMdt-0000Tr-64 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:41:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baMdo-0004Ra-1a for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:41:53 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-x243.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::243]:32964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baMdm-0004RI-Qk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:41:47 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-x243.google.com with SMTP id z8so1373930ywa.0 for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:41:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87pop6pmnl.fsf@gmail.com> 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: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel > I wonder, are there any drawbacks of making the linter check that the > URL provides the data named by the hash? That may be useful. I think if guix refresh would accept a version flag, and possibly a force flag, that would also be useful. The version flag would be used as follows: guix refresh qtbase -u --version=5.7.0 If the version is already set to 5.7.0 a -f flag would download and update the hash anyway. This is useful when the download url has changed, but the version hasn't as in the snappy example. I think these two features could make guix refresh more generally applicable, to packages that don't have an automatic updater.