Ben (can I trust you now?),

On 24/03/17 13:26, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
> The correct hash is 0py8hsspvwjlckg2xi7jcpj0frrp2qbmsy9x55fx0knnwbhdg5d2.

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 ‘correct’ is of course not always clear.

‘guix hash’ 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 ‘expecting ..., got ...’. Like most people, I just
got used to it. Perhaps I should have sent that patch anyway.

Kind regards,

T G-R