I can’t speak for anyone else, but that works for me :)
> On Oct 11, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
> <jerem...@macports.org> wrote:
>
> 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 <dl...@geeklair.net> 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 <j...@macports.org> 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, jerem...@macports.org 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
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dl...@geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
| Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily |
| reflect the opinions of my employer. |
+========================================================+
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
