On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:52:06PM -0500, Andrew Brown wrote:
> (catching up)
> 
> >I considered modifying the existing cksum(1) utility, but thought
> >that it wasn't scalable enough, and I considered using openssl, but
> >didn't want pkgsrc to be dependent on openssl being installed, and
> >because the output format isn't the same as md5(1).
> 
> i have patches to cksum that i did last week (before i read this) to
> add md4 (a no brainer, even if it is unused), sha1 (although not the
> large sha variants), and rmd160.  a few minor changes to cksum.c and
> md5.c and a few new little files (eg sha1.c into which md5.c is simply
> included) made it rather easy.  should i throw it away?

Well, what did you do in cksum to do with all the existing md5
options?  (probably the same as I did, keep them).  How do you select
sha1 or rmd160?  Did you get rid of the md5 regression tests?  Did you
make the existing "old" and "new" checksums into their own separate
modules, and just use a table to call them?  Once I'd finished doing
that, I started to get worried that I'd preserved the original
behaviour of SYSV and BSD checksums.
 
> i've also attached a small patch that seems to me to be rather useful
> in the face of the multiple algorithms that digest supports.  it
> basically adds a "help" hash that prints the other hash names, and a
> -h option that does the same thing.

Looks good. I'll add it to the digest package, if that's OK.
 
> i'd also like to note that the use of sha1 (although not sha256,
> sha384, or sha512) on alpha spews a lot of messages of the form:
>
> pid 18514 (digest): unaligned access: va=0x12012275f pc=0x120004eb4 ra=0x12012275f op=stl
> 

With sha1 from libc, or compiled into the package from the provided source?
 
Thanks,
Alistair