GNU bug report logs - #36614
rust@1.36's hash is incorrect.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ivan Petkov <ivanppetkov <at> gmail.com>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 36614-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#36614: rust <at> 1.36's hash is incorrect.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:33:50 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> On Jul 12, 2019, at 6:16 AM, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> wrote:
> 
> Since release archives are signed that would imply some horrible things about their key management, so I doubt it very much.  I guess we'll find out.
> 
> I've gone ahead and pushed a fix since the signature checked out. I'm closing this bug for now...
> 
> However, I'd be interested to know what the previous hash described.  Do you still have that file around, Ivan?

My apologies, this was all partly my fault. I do have the old source lying
around, diffing the two (attached) reveals that the changelog and one source
file actually changed.

A bit more detailed context:
The rust project makes pre-release sources available for testing ahead of
the formal release, and the process is meant to shake out any potential bugs.
I tested with the prerelease build originally, and after the real release
came out I updated the package URL to the formal release and immediately
rebuilt successfully.

I'm not 100% sure if maybe guix reused the cached tarball I had from earlier,
or whether the prerelease source was immediately upgraded to the formal release
and fixed shortly after. (I did try rebuilding right before pushing the change
out which succeeded with no changes, which I'm guessing is because guix did
not redownload the tarball and why I didn't notice the hash mismatch).

—Ivan

[rust-src.diff (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.