Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about if we provide separate binaries for now, and then if
> someone contributes a general, umbrella-style checksumming tool,
> we can simply add that too?
Yes, that's quite all right with me. (I mostly keep suggesting the
all-in-one tool because I
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes:
>> Would it make more sense to have a single sha utility
>
> That's just what I was about to suggest, except why not unify all the
> coreutils checksumming utilities?
I can see the appeal, but I like the ``one task, on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes:
> Would it make more sense to have a single sha utility
That's just what I was about to suggest, except why not unify all the
coreutils checksumming utilities?
Of course it would take some work
___
Bug-coreu
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 04:30:51PM +, Eric Blake wrote:
> Would it make more sense to have a single sha utility that takes
> an argument of which algorithm to use, defaulting to the most
> secure, then the user can define wrappers to invoke a non-default
> algorithm? For example, 'sha --algori
David Madore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, I am willing to do that.
Great.
I'll send you the copyright forms.
>> My requesting a `clean' patch means we're pretty picky,
>> and that the more of the following you can do, the better.
>
> Can I ask you to take a look at the attached patch? It is
> Can I ask you to take a look at the attached patch? It is not yet
> satisfactory (at least, it needs to be forwardported to the CVS
> version, as I worked against 5.2.1 because I wanted to install this
> ASAP on my Debian boxen), but maybe we can start from this to discuss
> what needs to be don
David Madore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> md5 has been broken for some time now; sha1 also has been, more
> recently (an actual collision is not known, so far, but a way to
> produce one in a "reasonable" amount of computer time has been
> provided). Consequently, the md5sum and sha1sum utilities
