[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[Clément Lassieur]

* 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"))))
     (arguments
      `(#:modules ((guix build emacs-build-system)
                   (guix build utils)
-- 
2.15.0

[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 231 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 06:07:55PM +0100, Clément Lassieur wrote:
> * 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? :)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[Ludovic Courtès]

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.

Ludo’.

[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1211 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:15:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[Clément Lassieur]

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.

Thanks,
Clément

[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[Nicolas Goaziou]

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?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou                                                0x80A93738

[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[Clément Lassieur]

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> 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.

[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update.

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 492 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 03:33:08PM +0100, Clément Lassieur wrote:
> 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 :)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]