* sha256: base32 VS nix-base32
@ 2018-09-05 15:35 HiPhish
2018-09-09 10:26 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: HiPhish @ 2018-09-05 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: help-guix
When using `guix download` and `guix hash` there are (among other) the formats
`nix-base32` and `base32`. It appears that when writing a package definition I
have to use the former with the `(base32 "...")` expression. This really
confused be because I thought that "base32" means "base32" on both sides. What
is the deal with this?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: sha256: base32 VS nix-base32
2018-09-05 15:35 sha256: base32 VS nix-base32 HiPhish
@ 2018-09-09 10:26 ` Ludovic Courtès
2018-09-09 10:34 ` HiPhish
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-09-09 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: HiPhish; +Cc: help-guix
Hi,
HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> skribis:
> When using `guix download` and `guix hash` there are (among other) the formats
> `nix-base32` and `base32`. It appears that when writing a package definition I
> have to use the former with the `(base32 "...")` expression. This really
> confused be because I thought that "base32" means "base32" on both sides. What
> is the deal with this?
Package definitions expect a nix-base32-formatted string, even though
the macro is called ‘base32’ and not ‘nix-base32’. Internally Guix uses
‘nix-base32’ exclusively so you shouldn’t have to worry about it.
HTH,
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: sha256: base32 VS nix-base32
2018-09-09 10:26 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2018-09-09 10:34 ` HiPhish
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: HiPhish @ 2018-09-09 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: help-guix
Thanks, that answers my question then. Maybe it would be worth adding a note
in the manual for future users?
On Sonntag, 9. September 2018 12:26:57 CEST you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> skribis:
> > When using `guix download` and `guix hash` there are (among other) the
> > formats `nix-base32` and `base32`. It appears that when writing a package
> > definition I have to use the former with the `(base32 "...")` expression.
> > This really confused be because I thought that "base32" means "base32" on
> > both sides. What is the deal with this?
>
> Package definitions expect a nix-base32-formatted string, even though
> the macro is called ‘base32’ and not ‘nix-base32’. Internally Guix uses
> ‘nix-base32’ exclusively so you shouldn’t have to worry about it.
>
> HTH,
> Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-09-09 10:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-09-05 15:35 sha256: base32 VS nix-base32 HiPhish
2018-09-09 10:26 ` Ludovic Courtès
2018-09-09 10:34 ` HiPhish
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.