Subject: bug#41382: closed (Re: [bug#41382] [PATCH 0/6] Allow for a cryptographic hash function migration)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 23:44:01 +0000

Your bug report

#41382: [PATCH 0/6] Allow for a cryptographic hash function migration

which was filed against the guix-patches package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
41382: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=41382
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: [bug#41382] [PATCH 0/6] Allow for a cryptographic hash function migration
From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
To: Marius Bakke <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 01:43:32 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Pushed the whole series:

  ce0be5675b packages: Introduce <content-hash> and use it in <origin>.
  56f7ca6e7c packages: Add 'base64' macro.
  0e4e9c8e76 guix hash, guix download: Support base64 format.
  18ae1ec3ec guix hash, guix download: Add '--hash'.
  9418aaa00d tests: Test fixed-output derivations with several hash algorithms.
  73b27eaa64 tests: Test 'add-to-store' with several hash algorithms.

You’ll have to recompile due to the ABI change:

  make clean-go && make

I realized several tests needed to be adjusted for proper syntax-case
matching, which I did in ce0be5675b.

Ludo’.

Subject: [PATCH 0/6] Allow for a cryptographic hash function migration
From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 23:31:16 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hello Guix!

This is a first stab at preparing for a possible migration to
hash algorithms other than SHA256 (there’s no rush AFAIK, but it’s
good to be prepared).  The first bits just improve tests and
adjust the tools, which doesn’t hurt.

The last bit adds a ‘sha512’ field to <origin>, which we could
eventually provide instead of or in addition to ‘sha256’, possibly
as a base64-encoded string so that it’s not too large.

Another option would be to create a <hash> data type that specifies
its algorithm and its value.  We’d replace the ‘sha256’ field with
a ‘hash’ field of that type (in a backward-compatible way).  Thinking
about it, this is perhaps the better option.

Other bits that would need to be adjusted include importer, updaters,
and ‘guix publish’.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

Ludovic Courtès (6):
  tests: Test 'add-to-store' with several hash algorithms.
  tests: Test fixed-output derivations with several hash algorithms.
  guix hash, guix download: Add '--hash'.
  guix hash, guix download: Support base64 format.
  packages: Add 'sha512' optional field to <origin>.
  packages: Add 'base64' macro.

 doc/guix.texi             | 25 +++++++++++++++--
 guix/packages.scm         | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 guix/scripts/download.scm | 26 +++++++++++++-----
 guix/scripts/hash.scm     | 35 +++++++++++++++++-------
 tests/derivations.scm     | 39 ++++++++++++++++-----------
 tests/guix-hash.sh        |  7 ++++-
 tests/packages.scm        | 26 ++++++++++++++++++
 tests/store.scm           | 12 +++++++++
 8 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)

-- 
2.26.2