Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>> Currently, we are updating four: version (i.e. affecting the distfile), md5,
>> sha1, rmd160. Just saying that it would be less clutter to have, say "SIZE"
>> and "SHA256" collected in a "distinfo" file, since that's what FreeBSD Ports
>> is using... ("make makesum") Just an observation from using both ports
>> systems, really.
>
> Kind of begs the question: Do we need this many checksums? md5 and sha1 are
> weak hashes, sure, but how about sha256?
Apparently MacPorts prefers using sha1+rmd160 over sha256, and also it was "too
long" (fixed by automating, or using base-32)
The md5 is more of a left-over, though still used by many upstreams. But think
it's currently being recommended against using ?
I dunno, it seems to be the norm. Add new features, leave old ones in.
Three versions of checksums, archives, pythons, perls, and so on....
Anyway, we don't want filesizes and we don't want sha256 checksums.
It's implemented already, but not worth the effort fighting about...
--anders
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
