Subject: Re: Updated diffs for unified digest/checksum file
To: Alistair Crooks <>
From: Hubert Feyrer <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 04/08/2001 16:32:32
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> I discovered a slight bug in my previous diffs, in that they assumed
> that $PATCH_SUM_FILE} and ${DIGEST_FILE} always exist. This is not the
> case when constructing new packages.

I've played a bit with it, and it seems to work fine. 
The only thing that I wonder if we want to keep it that way is that 'make
makesum' and 'make makepatchsum' only update their part of the file, not
everything? While I see the advantage (not requiring distfile for changing
patches), i wonder if we want to keep things that way, or if we want a
(new?) target that does both steps. 

> To the others out there - vote early and vote often.

Voting on something like this reminds me of that web site that let people
vote what's the most secure OS... I still think we should choose obvious
names that most people will recognize as what it is. [1]

Argumenting that 'digest' is a summary reminds me of ThomasBSD - will we
stop shipping distfiles & patches, and just hand people MD5
checks^Wdigests and let the original data compute from that? :) [2]

On a last note, the filename should have a trailing, plural "s" at the end
of it's name, as it covers data from several files (usually). 

 - Hubert


Hubert Feyrer <>