From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60253) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJjFr-0007aA-C9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:01:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJjFl-0007bv-SW for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:01:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:54392) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eJjFl-0007bo-Px for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:01:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eJjFl-0001Xq-IW for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:01:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update. Resent-Message-ID: From: Nicolas Goaziou In-Reply-To: <87a7z7f7hn.fsf@lassieur.org> ("=?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur"'s message of "Tue, 28 Nov 2017 03:43:32 +0100") References: <20171126170755.10891-1-clement@lassieur.org> <87wp2cu1o2.fsf@gnu.org> <20171126223521.GA17517@jasmine.lan> <87a7z7f7hn.fsf@lassieur.org> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:00:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87induqqwq.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur Cc: 29457@debbugs.gnu.org Hello, Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur writes: > Leo Famulari writes: >> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:15:41PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > 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, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou 0x80A93738