Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Why does sha256 sum of 1.6 release was changed? #1773

Closed
svetlyak40wt opened this issue Nov 26, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Why does sha256 sum of 1.6 release was changed? #1773

svetlyak40wt opened this issue Nov 26, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@svetlyak40wt
Copy link

Homebrew fixed sha256 hash of 1.6 version as 9625784cf2e4fd9842f1d407681ce4878b5b0dcddbcd31c6135114a30c71e6a8

Homebrew/homebrew-core@c3be568

But now it is 5de8c8e29aaa3fb9cc6b47bb27299f271354ebb72514e3accadc7d38b5bbaa72:

[art@osx:~]% curl -s -L 'https://github.com/stedolan/jq/releases/download/jq-1.6/jq-1.6.tar.gz' | shasum -a 256
5de8c8e29aaa3fb9cc6b47bb27299f271354ebb72514e3accadc7d38b5bbaa72  -

Why does it change? May be somebody changed the sources?

@wtlangford
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, I repackaged the sources a couple times after release because they had various issues (#1352 (comment), #1756) . My apologies, I didn't realize that homebrew pinned sha256 hashes for the source tarballs. The tarballs are stable now, as far as I'm aware. I can also confirm that the hash 5de8c8e29aaa3fb9cc6b47bb27299f271354ebb72514e3accadc7d38b5bbaa72 matches the hash on the file I uploaded from my computer.

@fxcoudert
Copy link

Thanks. In future, we'd appreciate if you could release a patch level version rather than edit the released tarballs (in accordance with the rules of semantic versioning).

lazka added a commit to lazka/MINGW-packages that referenced this issue May 4, 2019
It's only used for the docs, but that needs ruby as well and we didn't build it.

Also update the checksum, the tarball was updated after the release:
   jqlang/jq#1773
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants