From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Subject: Re: downloading a tarball Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:14:20 +0100 Message-ID: <70f61b82-be0d-e493-6841-cb2d121f3051@tobias.gr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FeO5At79VSpSXervNqqlAWTUdFKCpimUi" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34364) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crP2C-0002rz-LQ for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:13:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crP25-00011F-Ux for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:13:38 -0400 Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.199]:34574) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1crP25-00010I-KL for help-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:13:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au, help-guix@gnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --FeO5At79VSpSXervNqqlAWTUdFKCpimUi Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8OMxpNFGXDNHI5KmXjSmLCnnOKxeEJpN1"; protected-headers="v1" From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice To: b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au, help-guix@gnu.org Message-ID: <70f61b82-be0d-e493-6841-cb2d121f3051@tobias.gr> Subject: Re: downloading a tarball References: In-Reply-To: --8OMxpNFGXDNHI5KmXjSmLCnnOKxeEJpN1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ben (can I trust you now?), On 24/03/17 13:26, Ben Woodcroft wrote: > The correct hash is 0py8hsspvwjlckg2xi7jcpj0frrp2qbmsy9x55fx0knnwbhdg5d= 2. I'm afraid it's the other way round. ;-) > `/gnu/store/7mfyynbzzi15265z92bdb00j7lxfa70y-libxls-1.4.0.zip' should > have sha256 hash `0py8hsspvwjlckg2xi7jcpj0frrp2qbmsy9x55fx0knnwbhdg5d2'= , > instead has `1g8ds7wbhsa4hdcn77xc2c0l3vvz5bx2hx9ng9c9n7aii92ymfnk' The first hash is what's expected, the second is what was actually received. What's =E2=80=98correct=E2=80=99 is of course not always clear.= =E2=80=98guix hash=E2=80=99 on my manually downloaded copy returns 1g8ds7wbhsa4hdcn77xc2c0l3vvz5bx2hx9ng9c9n7aii92ymfnk. I did no further checking. > HTH - speaking from experience making the same mistake here.. I suspect most people have. The message isn't as clear as it could be. It doesn't help that IIRC Nix and Guix differ(ed) in which hash they place first. So much fun when dual-'ixing. I considered changing the wording of this a long time ago to say something more like =E2=80=98expecting ..., got ...=E2=80=99. Like most p= eople, I just got used to it. Perhaps I should have sent that patch anyway. Kind regards, T G-R --8OMxpNFGXDNHI5KmXjSmLCnnOKxeEJpN1-- --FeO5At79VSpSXervNqqlAWTUdFKCpimUi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEqBAEBCgAUBQJY1RutDRxtZUB0b2JpYXMuZ3IACgkQkczbm0hUG5kpIAf/fmWe qo+76iCTJ5ZLBCbj3IbyGr4q8TPP37uqU5VRkXpVLzUMrMnj7Sp5rk4uzl7VIjxI FO44oTwXFg4tyTM4jeldTBYUwIhUbCQ8VYLyv6PoF4T2AgTYr2Tq60t3SUyvPp0z CE9JWn3F80ts8Pktls8tV2MpU3car1eb3i87l3hBQoXejEGizfCR+GTQkn1idmLD X0+1+Ryx6jBgEpP1OZDjtxiFrCWTrDzJgoaSzTcf9Olhq2kxLk4CjcBIV3yPPY5q 4OxOBV2fl6vY6n9HaFiiQe8FrkeIIDd45T10f5PzaRrXKsCbIneaUJVBOZC/cgTr 1N0z8NOPJ4t8XYi0SA== =OL8q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FeO5At79VSpSXervNqqlAWTUdFKCpimUi--