Hi, On 10/23/2011 01:32 AM, Kevin Quick wrote:
> Can anyone else confirm or refute the newer 636f201 hash value, and should > this derivation be updated? This has been fixed by Lluís (r29974). -- Eelco Dolstra | http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~dolstra/ _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
