From 65bd82d42ac3f546c678fc36ca035525da7bc079 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Bj=C3=B8rn=20Forsman?= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:14:59 +0100 Subject: Clarify error message for hash mismatches (again) This is arguably nitpicky, but I think this new formulation is even clearer. My thinking is that it's easier to comprehend when the calculated hash value is displayed close to the output path. (I think it is somewhat similar to eliminating double negatives in logic statements.) The formulation is inspired / copied from the OpenEmbedded build tool, bitbake. --- src/libstore/build.cc | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/libstore/build.cc b/src/libstore/build.cc index 1c751ab98..70c4540bc 100644 --- a/src/libstore/build.cc +++ b/src/libstore/build.cc @@ -2736,8 +2736,8 @@ void DerivationGoal::registerOutputs() Hash h2 = recursive ? hashPath(ht, actualPath).first : hashFile(ht, actualPath); if (h != h2) throw BuildError( - format("Nix expects output path ‘%1%’ to have %2% hash ‘%3%’, instead it has ‘%4%’") - % path % i.second.hashAlgo % printHash16or32(h) % printHash16or32(h2)); + format("output path ‘%1%’ has %2% hash ‘%3%’ when ‘%4%’ was expected") + % path % i.second.hashAlgo % printHash16or32(h2) % printHash16or32(h)); } /* Get rid of all weird permissions. This also checks that -- cgit v1.2.3