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

ccemux: mark broken (download fails hash validation) #272193

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

ccemux: mark broken (download fails hash validation) #272193

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Dec 5, 2023

This package's FOD fails hash validation.

@ghost ghost marked this pull request as ready for review December 5, 2023 06:07
@@ -64,5 +64,6 @@ stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
sourceProvenance = with sourceTypes; [ binaryBytecode ];
license = licenses.mit;
maintainers = with maintainers; [ CrazedProgrammer viluon ];
broken = true; # download of CCEmuX-cct.jar fails hash validation
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we update hash ?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since I don't use this software I am not qualified to decide if that's safe.

Usually the best course here is to mark the package as broken and if nobody steps up, let the package get garbage-collected. If somebody does step up to audit the mysteriously-changed binary jarfile, and wants to take the reputational risk upon themselves, more power to them!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe @viluon can have a look ( last committer ), otherwise I agree with your assessment

Copy link
Contributor

@superherointj superherointj Jan 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @amjoseph-nixpkgs . My nitpick is to open a tracking issue and reference it. So discussions of fixing that package happens in that issue. And add the day the breakage is being reported.

Copy link

@MCJack123 MCJack123 Jan 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Upstream doesn't do version control on binaries AFAIK. The maintainer will have to be on top of version bumps to avoid this issue from happening. I don't use Nix, so I don't know if this is an option (probably isn't), but it may also be necessary to skip checking hashes to avoid breakages between updates.

Disregard this, I've been corrected.

Copy link
Contributor

@viluon viluon Jan 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nah, see CCEmuX/CCEmuX#167. Thanks @kirillrdy for the mention.

@viluon
Copy link
Contributor

viluon commented Jan 21, 2024

Per @SquidDev's response, it should be safe to just update the hash, although the package will remain flaky.

I agree that a full Nix build would be better, maybe the original packager @CrazedProgrammer has tried this in the past? I've had little luck with Gradle builds in Nix myself, but maybe this is a simple enough project that it could work.

@ghost ghost closed this Jan 23, 2024
@ghost ghost deleted the pr/broken/ccemux branch January 23, 2024 06:47
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants