You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Today, the same URL points at a different file, with the SHA-256 sum 830093ee961ef50977ff14a450d99f18ea34479ec9188d3259cb42ebbfdf74dc.
It looks like the package may have been rebuilt with a different version of nixpkgs?
I'm not sure if this is intentional or not.
If this was intentional, I think it would be better to avoid doing this, because it breaks the ability to download a file from a known URL and then verify its integrity with a previously acquired hash.
If you need to rebuild a package even though the upstream software hasn't changed, I suggest that you introduce a packaging version, for example 2.17.1-1, 2.17.1-2, etc. For Debian packages, you may want to read https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#version (the debian_revision field).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
On
2024-03-31
, the file at https://nix-community.github.io/nix-installers/x86_64/nix-multi-user-2.17.1.deb had the SHA-256 sumf7a72254709f700e2b804c418b1314dc326e4fa492de2375f4e68362dbc1ea46
.Today, the same URL points at a different file, with the SHA-256 sum
830093ee961ef50977ff14a450d99f18ea34479ec9188d3259cb42ebbfdf74dc
.It looks like the package may have been rebuilt with a different version of
nixpkgs
?I'm not sure if this is intentional or not.
If this was intentional, I think it would be better to avoid doing this, because it breaks the ability to download a file from a known URL and then verify its integrity with a previously acquired hash.
If you need to rebuild a package even though the upstream software hasn't changed, I suggest that you introduce a packaging version, for example
2.17.1-1
,2.17.1-2
, etc. For Debian packages, you may want to read https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#version (thedebian_revision
field).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: