bug#55603: closed ([PATCH] gnu: acpi-call-linux-module: Update hash because of upstream retag.)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 23 May 2022 22:59:27 +0200
with message-id <871qwk2c9v@nckx>
and subject line Re: [bug#55603] [PATCH] gnu: acpi-call-linux-module: Update 
hash because of upstream retag.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #55603,
regarding [PATCH] gnu: acpi-call-linux-module: Update hash because of upstream 
retag.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
55603: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=55603
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> [PATCH] gnu: acpi-call-linux-module: Update hash because of upstream retag.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 23 May 2022 22:46:21 +0200
>
>
>
>
> * gnu/packages/linux.scm (acpi-call-linux-module): Update it.
> The old hash was for commit 9f1c0b5d046bdfdec769809435257647fd475473,
> 3 commits behind commit fe9dc95a83a95e4826c1a7c809d41c2f16de40a6 which
> is where the tag 1.2.2 now points.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/linux.scm | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/linux.scm b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> index 95a9bbe39f..78aed94b95 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> @@ -1186,7 +1186,7 @@ (define-public acpi-call-linux-module
>               (commit (string-append "v" version))))
>         (file-name (git-file-name name version))
>         (sha256
> -        (base32 "1s7h9y3adyfhw7cjldlfmid79lrwz3vqlvziw9nwd6x5qdj4w9vp"))))
> +        (base32 "09ljx0jl987753r2kjqj5kxms95bijw0xn14kf82ryn38ck5c8cf"))))
>      (build-system linux-module-build-system)
>      (arguments
>       (list #:tests? #f                  ; no tests
> -- 
> 2.36.0
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---

--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#55603] [PATCH] gnu: acpi-call-linux-module: Update hash because of upstream retag. Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:59:27 +0200

Josselin,

I moved the general explanation to its own paragraph above the (conventionally factual & short, but use your judgment) changelog section, and expanded it even more (although the paranoid will verify that anyway — and should).

Then, reader, I pushed.

Thanks!

T G-R

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---