Re: SHA256 checksums

2011-10-10 Thread Anders F Björklund
Jeremy Lavergne wrote: > Following up on a previous thread conversation [1], I'd like to know if > we're remotely interested in offering multi-length SHA256 checksums. This > will allow us to have SHA256 checksums of a more desirable length while > automatically switc

Re: SHA256 checksums

2011-10-06 Thread Jeremy Lavergne
> I expressed my views in this post: > I'm not certain where the "overall length" issue came up originally. I'd agree that's not a problem. The length issue I saw was wrapping Portfiles after a certain length, such as avoi

Re: SHA256 checksums

2011-10-06 Thread Joshua Root
On 2011-10-7 05:25 , Jeremy Lavergne wrote: > Following up on a previous thread conversation [1], I'd like to know if > we're remotely interested in offering multi-length SHA256 checksums. This > will allow us to have SHA256 checksums of a more desirable length while > a

SHA256 checksums

2011-10-06 Thread Jeremy Lavergne
Following up on a previous thread conversation [1], I'd like to know if we're remotely interested in offering multi-length SHA256 checksums. This will allow us to have SHA256 checksums of a more desirable length while automatically switching between the bases. Specifically,

Re: Using sha256 checksums causes "No checksum set" for MacPorts 1.x

2011-07-25 Thread Ryan Schmidt
und doing this. Using sha256 in >> combination with only one or two other kinds of checksums seems to be >> fine (except that of course MacPorts 1.9.2 cannot verify sha256 >> checksums). There is no reason to list more than two kinds of >> checksums for a distfile anyway, so this

Re: Using sha256 checksums causes "No checksum set" for MacPorts 1.x

2011-07-25 Thread Rainer Müller
her kinds of checksums seems to be > fine (except that of course MacPorts 1.9.2 cannot verify sha256 > checksums). There is no reason to list more than two kinds of > checksums for a distfile anyway, so this should not be a difficult > problem for port authors to deal with: simply onl

Re: Using sha256 checksums causes "No checksum set" for MacPorts 1.x

2011-07-24 Thread Joshua Root
On 2011-7-25 06:09 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > So let's wait awhile (a couple weeks or months), until most users have > updated to MacPorts 2.0.0 before adding sha256 checksums. We've always waited one week after past feature releases before using the new f

Re: Using sha256 checksums causes "No checksum set" for MacPorts 1.x

2011-07-24 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On Jul 24, 2011, at 15:09, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > Please don't add sha256 checksums to ports yet. Doing so will cause users of > MacPorts 1.9.2 to experience the error "No checksum set". And MacPorts 2.0.0 > just came out. So let's wait awhile (a couple weeks or mont

Using sha256 checksums causes "No checksum set" for MacPorts 1.x

2011-07-24 Thread Ryan Schmidt
Please don't add sha256 checksums to ports yet. Doing so will cause users of MacPorts 1.9.2 to experience the error "No checksum set". And MacPorts 2.0.0 just came out. So let's wait awhile (a couple weeks or months), until most users have updated to MacPorts 2.0.0

Re: SHA256 checksums

2010-10-25 Thread Arno Hautala
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 04:31, Anders F Björklund wrote: > > I think the main objection to sha256 checksums was > that they were "too long", even though one sha256 > is shorter than two as in both of sha1 and rmd160... Has this really come up as an issue? -- arno 

Re: SHA256 checksums

2010-10-25 Thread Rainer Müller
Hello Anders, On 2010-10-25 10:31 , Anders F Björklund wrote: > I think the main objection to sha256 checksums was > that they were "too long", even though one sha256 > is shorter than two as in both of sha1 and rmd160... > > But one way to make it "shorter" is

SHA256 checksums

2010-10-25 Thread Anders F Björklund
I think the main objection to sha256 checksums was that they were "too long", even though one sha256 is shorter than two as in both of sha1 and rmd160... But one way to make it "shorter" is to use base32 rather than base16 for encoding the digest string ? (the end bits ar