Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> writes: > On 01/09/2025 19:15, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 01/09/2025 19:09, Collin Funk wrote: >>> Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> writes: >>>> p.s. I'm thinking cksum might deprecate the explicit -a >>>> sha{224,256,384,512}, >>>> instead preferring -a sha2 -l {224,256,384,512}, which is more symmetrical >>>> and neater. >>>> Though for interop compat we would not change the output tag, keeping >>>> SHA{224,256,384,512}. >>> >>> I agree with this in principle. However, it would cause some breakage. > > >> Well we'd still allow `cksum -a sha256` but only document `cksum -a sha2 -l >> 256`. >> Anyway I'll think more about it. > > The attached implements this interface cleanup while being backwards > compatible. > The change is summarized in this hunk, and I'm 60:40 for adding it, > as I've long been annoyed with how these size variants leaked into the name > space.
FWIW, I like this change. I don't think we will ever be able to remove them. And printing a "'cksum -a sha256' deprecated" will certainly cause complaints. So I think your patch is as good as we can do. Collin
