[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Package definition hash calculation
Re: Package definition hash calculation
Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:18:34 +0200
K-9 Mail for Android
I don't think it's documented.
I use guix.scm in my projects, so it's supported. I don't understand your issue
with the hash then, because now it sounds that you're cloning the same commit
everytime, so how do you get a different hash?
Le 11 juillet 2022 11:19:25 GMT+02:00, Zelphir Kaltstahl
<email@example.com> a écrit :
>I did create the release tag on the latest commit, which was also the master
>branch. I thought there was some clever trick to get Guix to ignore the
>`guix.scm` file, when calculating the hash sum, but apparently that is not the
>case. I still wonder how I made the first version of the package though. I did
>not know about `git-checkout` as `source` method. Thanks for that!
>I am unsure, whether my project must have a `guix.scm` file or not, to be a
>valid Guix package in the end, when I add it to (update the entry in)
>`gnu/packages/guile-xyz.scm`. Maybe a `guix.scm` in the project is not even
>Anyway, the idea makes sense to track the master using a checkout without a
>hash sum, so that I don't have the problem of the hash changing any longer.
>Just not sure it will work for updating the package in guix. I will try it.
>There is no information about `git-checkout`:
>https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/origin-Reference.html Is it elsewhere
>in the docs?
>On 7/9/22 13:44, Julien Lepiller wrote:
>> When you use guix download, or url-fetch, the hash is computed over the
>> entire file, whether it's a tarball that contains other files or whatever
>> else doesn't matter. You can't exclude files from inside the tarball. It's
>> just the checksum of the file.
>> What you describes sounds like you're downloading a tarball that's generated
>> from your master instead of a particular commit. So everytime you push a
>> change to guix.scm, it's a new commit and a different tar.gz (different
>> checksum). So you're always chasing after the correct checksum, which won't
>> So you can have a guix.scm in your repo, but it can't refer to a generated
>> tarball from master. Instead, you could make it refer to master and not have
>> to provide a hash like so:
>> (source (git-checkout (url "https://…")))
>> No more chasing afcer master :)
>> On July 9, 2022 1:09:27 PM GMT+02:00, Zelphir Kaltstahl
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hello Guix users!
>> I feel a bit stupid to ask about this topic again, however, to me it is
>> not really clear, what I need to do, when calculating the hash of a package,
>> so that I can write it in the package definition.
>> I have a project (https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl/guile-fslib),
>> which I have packaged before, but that was already a year ago or so, and I
>> forgot the precise process involving the hashes.
>> I have the following questions:
>> (1) When I edit the `guix.scm` file and change the hash in there, make a
>> tarball release on notabug, and then run `guix download <tarball of
>> release>`, I get a new hash. If I edit the guix.scm file again and repeat
>> the process, I get a new hash … endless loop of getting a new hash and
>> changing the file accordingly. My guess is, that this is, because `guix
>> download` does not exclude the `guix.scm` file. I would have to manually
>> make a `tar.gz` and upload that as a release to notabug and then reference
>> that. – Is this correct?
>> (2) I guess I should be using `guix hash --exclude-vcs --serializer=nar
>> --format=??? .` instead, since my package definition makes use of the
>> `git-fetch` method of fetching the package. I had totally forgotten about
>> this, until I searched in old e-mails, reading old replies to previous
>> questions I asked on this mailing list. I think it could be made clearer in
>> the docs, which command to use in which case. However, now I am not sure
>> which `--format=` I should use. I would guess `base32`, because in my
>> package definition it says `(sha256 (base32 "..."))`. Is this correct? Or is
>> the default fine?
>> (3) What is the recommended way to update a package's source code and
>> then "in one go" calculate the hash, update the `guix.scm` and make a proper
>> release, which only has the appropriate files in the tarball?
>> (4) Should a release tarball contain a `guix.scm` package definition?
>> (My guess is not, since the hash in that file changes and that would change
>> the tarball. Maybe I am overlooking things/magic though.)
>> I am feeling like I am stuck in what should be a simple process, because
>> I still have some points that are unclear to me. I try updating my guide to
>> packaging a pure Guile package when I learn new things, so that I can read
>> up next time I want to make a release or a new package, but a few things are
>> still missing or unclear.
>> Thank you for all your help!
>> Best regards,
>> -- repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl