Subject: Re: muhah
To: Alistair Crooks <>
From: Trevor Johnson <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 03/26/2001 12:41:55
> > So? They aren't MD5 hashes. :-)
> >
> > As I understand it, the *BSD md5(1) program set prior art for how md5
> > hashes look. It's a shame that openssl didn't follow the same format. But
> > then openssl went off and added sha1 and r{,ipe}md160 support. Why does it
> > make sense to not follow their lead? At least in how we name the hashes..
> > (RIPEMD160 vs RMD160).
> >
> > And since the support for these hashes hasn't been in md5/cksum(1) for a
> > week, changing it shouldn't be too big a deal.
> Because there were/are about 3000 files in pkgsrc which have
> information stored in the output format of md5(1) - all of the
> files/md5 and files/patch-sum files.  I made the output of digest(1)
> compatible with that, so that I wouldn't have to add yet more logic to
> to work out whether I was dealing with an md5-style
> checksum, or an openssl-style checksum.

If you would look at the patch I sent the other day, you will notice that
it doesn't change the output for MD5 hashes.  Therefore it does not create
the need for such logic.
Trevor Johnson