On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Alistair Crooks wrote:

> 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.
>
	Amen :)

> 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.

	'cksum'? Its short, and the cksum command hopefully should
	continue to have the ability to generate the checksums used? :)

                David/absolute
			       -- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --