[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to e
From: |
Leo Famulari |
Subject: |
[bug#29457] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-org-contrib: Fix sha256 checksum due to emacs-org update. |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:35:21 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) |
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:15:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Clément Lassieur <address@hidden> skribis:
>
> > * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs-org-contrib)[source]: Fix sha256 checksum.
> > ---
> > gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> > index acd6ec30a..7e16c8b4b 100644
> > --- a/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> > +++ b/gnu/packages/emacs.scm
> > @@ -4230,7 +4230,7 @@ reproducible research.")
> > (package-version emacs-org) ".tar"))
> > (sha256
> > (base32
> > - "0xy2xrndlhs4kyvh6mmv24dnh3fn5p63d2gaimnrypf1p8znwzh4"))))
> > + "071vqv6hdyjp85ap39930782ks07ypjzch81r8kax3ybwfrf0chx"))))
>
> Was the SHA256 simply erroneous, or was the file modified in-place
> upstream?
>
> It’s 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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature