On 07/24/2012 02:44 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 07/24/2012 12:18 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote: >> Hello, >> I'd like to consult this RFE >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-11/msg00341.html and >> find out if my proposed solutions would be satisfactory. There shouldn't >> be a problem with printing the >> hash-type prefix before printing the generated hash. My concerns are more >> with the hash utils' logic >> during hash check. Should the utils recognize the prefix/prefixless >> version of the input on their own >> or should they require the proposed '-l' switch during the checking as >> well? Personally, I'd lean more >> towards the idea of automatic prefix recognition, which shouldn't be too >> hard to implement and would probably >> feel more natural to everyone. >> Cheers, >> Ondrej Oprala > > A fairly sensible idea. > > Generating the tags would need to be optional of course. > I vote for --tag.
Hmm, we already support a tagged format. The BSD default format from the md5, sha1, sha256 utils is of the form: MD5 (filename) = .................... No point in coming up with another format. > Consuming the tags with --check should be automatic. > > Tags could be useful too if we ever decided to consolidate > to a single checksum util. I notice that openbsd applies that technique to its cksum util, and it outputs in the BSD format above: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=cksum http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/bin/md5/md5.c?rev=HEAD;content-type=text%2Fplain cheers, Pádraig.
