From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39991) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJ5Wv-0002rX-IS for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:36:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJ5Ws-0001zB-EW for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:36:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51043) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJ5Ws-0001z2-AB for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:36:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eJ5Ws-00082B-0B for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:36:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:35:21 -0500 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: <20171126223521.GA17517@jasmine.lan> References: <20171126170755.10891-1-clement@lassieur.org> <87wp2cu1o2.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wp2cu1o2.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 29457@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:15:41PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur skribis: >=20 > > * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-org-contrib)[source]: Fix sha256 checks= um. > > --- > > 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"= )))) >=20 > Was the SHA256 simply erroneous, or was the file modified in-place > upstream? >=20 > It=E2=80=99s 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. --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----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----- --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy--