Ok, so if the set includes the union of "good" and "specified", we're all happy?
> On Oct 11, 2015, at 13:25, Daniel J. Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > If we really want to encourage people to stop using the weak hashes, we could > print a warning if any of them are in the output. > >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 4:12 PM, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote: >> How about this: >> >> * If the checksums specified in the Portfile include sha256, just print >> out the actual values for those checksum types. >> >> * If not, add sha256 to the list when printing out the actual values. >> >> After all there's no harm in using weak hashes in addition to good ones. >> >> - Josh >> >> On 2015-10-12 07:02 , Joshua Root wrote: >>> Yes, and I seem to remember having this conversation once before... :) >>> >>> On 2015-10-12 05:06 , Daniel J. Luke wrote: >>>> it’s really useful for the case when upstream publishes a checksum (that’s >>>> not one of our default ‘good’ ones) when the output includes the checksums >>>> that are in the portfile. >>>> >>>>> On Oct 11, 2015, at 1:34 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> Use $default_checksum_types for handy copy/paste output on checksum >>>>> failure >>>>> >>>>> This should help adoption of better, more robust hashing algorithms. > > — > Daniel J. Luke > > +========================================================+ > | *---------------- [email protected] ----------------* | > > | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | > > +========================================================+ > | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | > > | reflect the opinions of my employer. | > > +========================================================+ > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
