Re: What’s next?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

>> Oops.  Here we go:
>>
>> modified   nix/libstore/build.cc
>> @@ -2449,8 +2449,11 @@ void DerivationGoal::registerOutputs()
>>              Hash h2 = recursive ? hashPath(ht, actualPath).first : 
>> hashFile(ht, actualPath);
>>              if (h != h2)
>>                  throw BuildError(
>> -                    format("output path `%1%' should have %2% hash `%3%', 
>> instead has `%4%'")
>> -                    % path % i->second.hashAlgo % printHash16or32(h) % 
>> printHash16or32(h2));
>> +                    format("%1% hash mismatch for output path `%2%'\n"
>> +                       "  expected: %3%\n"
>> +                       "  actual:   %4%")
>> +                    % i->second.hashAlgo % path
>> +                % printHash16or32(h) % printHash16or32(h2));
>>          }
>>
>>          /* Get rid of all weird permissions.  This also checks that
>> @@ -3096,7 +3099,9 @@ void SubstitutionGoal::finished()
>>              Hash expectedHash = parseHash16or32(hashType, 
>> string(expectedHashStr, n + 1));
>>              Hash actualHash = hashType == htSHA256 ? hash.first : 
>> hashPath(hashType, destPath).first;
>>              if (expectedHash != actualHash)
>> -                throw SubstError(format("hash mismatch in downloaded path 
>> `%1%': expected %2%, got %3%")
>> +                throw SubstError(format("hash mismatch in downloaded path 
>> `%1%'\n"
>> +                                    "  expected: %2%\n"
>> +                                    "  actual:   %3%")
>>                      % storePath % printHash(expectedHash) % 
>> printHash(actualHash));
>>          }
>>
>> Should we apply it?
>
> Yes, please.  This looks much better!  Thank you!

Applied!

Ludo’.