Hi,
On dim., 05 févr. 2023 at 18:44, b...@bokr.com wrote:
>> From my understanding, we could have something like,
>>
>> (sha256 (no-hash))
>>
>> where ’no-hash’ would return a string, say
>> "" or whatever else
>> that would satisfy this
Hi,
On +2023-01-11 16:34:41 +0100, Simon Tournier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 at 12:16, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Simon Tournier skribis:
> >
> >> Maybe my question is naive but what is the use case for this (sha256 #f)
> >> in the first place? Because maybe it could just error using
Hi,
Stephen Paul Weber skribis:
>>Once we update the ‘guix’ package, the daemon will no longer accept
>>‘url-fetch’ downloads with hash = #f.
>
> Ok. Is there something like (git-checkout) we can use that will work
> instead of an (origin) here for url downloads?
There’s in (guix transformati
Hi,
On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 at 12:16, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Simon Tournier skribis:
>
>> Maybe my question is naive but what is the use case for this (sha256 #f)
>> in the first place? Because maybe it could just error using some
>> ’sanitize’ for the hash record field.
>
> There’s a couple of u
Once we update the ‘guix’ package, the daemon will no longer accept
‘url-fetch’ downloads with hash = #f.
Ok. Is there something like (git-checkout) we can use that will work
instead of an (origin) here for url downloads?
Hi,
Ludovic Courtès skribis:
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,lower (origin
> (method url-fetch)
> (uri "mirror://gnu/hello/hello-2.12.1.tar.gz")
> (sha256 #f))
> $6 = # /gnu/store/lz34lhyxhq5wxj87fnd465hmwbhv17bn-hello-2
Simon Tournier skribis:
> Maybe my question is naive but what is the use case for this (sha256 #f)
> in the first place? Because maybe it could just error using some
> ’sanitize’ for the hash record field.
There’s a couple of uses: Chromium, IceCat, and Linux-libre (IIRC).
I don’t like that, b
Hi,
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 at 22:34, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Yes. When using (sha256 #f) url-fetch still has network access and
>> works to download things, which is inconsistent vs other fetchers.
>
> Hmm indeed:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 23:49, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> (sha256 #f) is not a doc
Hi!
Stephen Paul Weber skribis:
>>> However, there's no real reason that git-fetch *needs* to be
>>> fixed-output in terms of having a hash pre-defined, at least for local
>>> development and other purposes. So is there a way around this?
>>
>> • write (package (source (git-checkout …)) …)
>
>
However, there's no real reason that git-fetch *needs* to be
fixed-output in terms of having a hash pre-defined, at least for local
development and other purposes. So is there a way around this?
• write (package (source (git-checkout …)) …)
This works well. Now I'm curious how to know what
Hi,
Stephen Paul Weber skribis:
> It seem that url-fetch will work without a hash (that is, with (sha256
> #f)) but git-fetch will not.
(sha256 #f) is not a documented use case. :-)
> As near as I can tell this is because git-fetch uses a fixed
> derivation build going via nix/build.cc stuff
Hello Guix!
It seem that url-fetch will work without a hash (that is, with (sha256 #f))
but git-fetch will not.
As near as I can tell this is because git-fetch uses a fixed derivation
build going via nix/build.cc stuff which contains this line:
if (i.second.hash == "") fixedOutput =
12 matches
Mail list logo
