Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> I guess the checksums are the next lint complaint ? >> Since the old ports are still using MD5, I mean... > > Less important than nagging about ports still using md5 at this point would > be to nag about ports only using a single checksum type for a distfile. :/ In > such a nag, it could be recommended to use sha1 and rmd160.
Or just one sha256, but yeah that is what I meant. It would be more useful to add the download size, than to use two separate 160-bit checksum lines ? And it doesn't really become a "nag" until it is forced upon you through email on each port commit... Before that, it's more of your friendly "lint" tool. :-) --anders _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
