aur package installation failing - sha256 checksums
O2-AC opened this issue · 5 comments
I just want to inform you, that the current version 0.0.7 is not installing through the aur, due to a checksum failure. You probably have to update the sha256 checksum in the PKGBUILD.
Hmm weird... For me, it's installing. Which distro are you on (is it vanilla arch?) and which AUR helper are you using?
Interesting, I use vanilla arch with paru as AUR helper and get the following error thrown.
1 aur/pacmanfile 0.0.7-1 [+0 ~0.00] [Installed: 0.0.6-2]
Manage your pacman packages declaratively
:: Packages to install (eg: 1 2 3, 1-3):
:: 1
:: Resolving dependencies...
:: Calculating conflicts...
:: Calculating inner conflicts...
Aur (1) pacmanfile-0.0.7-1
:: Proceed to review? [Y/n]:
:: Downloading PKGBUILDs...
PKGBUILDs up to date
nothing new to review
fetching devel info...
==> Making package: pacmanfile 0.0.7-1 (Mon 07 Jun 2021 04:58:58 PM CEST)
==> Retrieving sources...
-> Found pacmanfile
==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
pacmanfile ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
error: failed to download sources for 'pacmanfile-0.0.7-1':
:: Packages failed to build: pacmanfile-0.0.7-1
More fascinating is the fact, that if I manually download pacmanfile from:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mastertinner/pacmanfile/v0.0.7/pacmanfile and then run:
$ sha256sum pacmanfile
6179e2bc7312323edd60244cf4c1fa87b7850a9f0500bca0c956064b1d97590f pacmanfile
I get the checksum provided in the PKGBUILD.
Edit: There also seems to be another user with that problem who commented on the AUR.
Update:
I got the install working by removing the old version from the paru cache (~/.config/paru/clone/pacmanfile). I assume paru used the PKGBUILD from the old version and thus was not able to verify the checksum.
I have no clue if that is a problem with paru or with the way the package was updated.
Maybe that was because I didn't actually release versions on GitHub to download from until 0.0.7. Therefore, I hope that this problem is resolved with the next release. If not, I'll have to investigate further :)
I did actually investigate further and it should be fixed with 0.0.7-3 now :)