From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58459) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gTimv-0007Lt-DP for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 02:37:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gTims-0000oz-9w for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 02:37:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:54400) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gTims-0000on-6M for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 02:37:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gTimr-0007c9-Uz for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 02:37:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#33540] [PATCH 2/3] gnu: Add lttoolbox. Resent-Message-ID: From: Arun Isaac In-Reply-To: <87y397k1ki.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20181130071612.6268-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> <20181130071612.6268-2-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> <87y397k1ki.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:06:26 +0530 Message-ID: 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 33540@debbugs.gnu.org >> + (origin >> + (method url-fetch) >> + (uri (string-append >> + "https://github.com/apertium/lttoolbox/releases/download/v" >> + version "/lttoolbox-" version ".tar.gz")) > > Instead of relying on generated tarballs like this one whose content may > change over time, we=E2=80=99re now switching to using =E2=80=98git-fetch= =E2=80=99. Could you > change this one accordingly? I don't think https://github.com/apertium/apertium/releases/download/v3.5.2/apertium-3.5.= 2.tar.gz is an autogenerated tarball. That is at https://github.com/apertium/apertium/archive/v3.5.2.tar.gz . Should I still switch to using git-fetch? That said, I tried building lttoolbox again now, and the hash does seem to have changed. I don't understand what's going on. > OK with these changes, thanks! The other suggested changes are fine. I'll make them once we decide what to do about the source tarball.