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
Test failures with 5.1 and libyaml 0.2.2 #320
Comments
I expect the libyaml tarball is bad, though I'm not sure how much that's really related. http://pyyaml.org/download/libyaml/yaml-0.2.2.tar.gz (sha256 = "1karpcfgacgppa82wm2drcfn2kb6q2wqfykf5nrhy20sci2i2a3q") contains a single directory called |
@vcunat That's weird.
And looking into |
OK, for me as well, if I re-fetch the file. When we were adding that file into distribution cache (10 days ago or a bit less), it had that hash I posted, but that's no longer true. |
The tests work with this "new" tarball, so I suppose this pyyaml issue should be closed anyway. When I compare the "new" tarball contents to a git checkout at tag |
The tarball that was uploaded as 0.2.2 was indeed incorrect, and it appears to have been resolved now. @vcunat I will fetch instead from GitHub in order to prevent issues like these in the future. With the correct 0.2.2 we also don't get the failing tests with pyyaml so closing. |
The archive that was used turned out to be incorrect. yaml/pyyaml#320 By now a correct tarball has been uploaded but in order to prevent issues like these we fetch now instead from GitHub.
@FRidh Ok, thanks, good to know that it's working now. |
The tarball is generated by |
Further checking shows it was a mistake at our side. In NixOS/nixpkgs#64293 the contributor did not update the hash, and I did not notice that. |
Oh, I'd swear I had checked for exactly that error, but incorrectly... apparently. I'm sorry. |
The issue occurs with both 2.7.16 and 3.7.4 of the Python interpreter.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: