On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:16:07 +0100 (BST), David Brownlee wrote:

>  	Another (smaller) saving could be reached by putting 'patch-sum'
>  	into 'md5'. This makes more sense if we go to a single patch file
>  	as it would be less clutter in md5.

I can't remember why I did it that way to begin with - something about not
forcing the existence of patch-sum files, I think, but it was a long time
ago. And, thankfully, the bugs we used to see reported have all but gone
away with the existence of the patch-sum files, although they can be a pain
sometimes, especially if you're maintaining packages.

It's fine by me to lump all the checksums into one file, but I'd like it to
be called "checksum", or "sum", or something generic - OpenBSD has been
using SHA to do their checksumming for a while now, for example (but for
some inexplicable reason I think they called their files "sha") - I'd like
to get away from the link to a specific algorithm.

Regards,
Alistair


--
Alistair Crooks (agc@pkgsrc.org)





_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html