Re: Increasing FreeBSD compatibility in mtree

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

> When I asked why we didn't have SHA384 the response I got was roughly
> "because it's an abomination that should never have been created".

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it is pretty silly.  SHA384 is the
same as SHA512 except that the initial state is different and 128 of
the output bits are thrown away; I have trouble imagining a
circumstance under which anything that could use SHA512 would prefer to
use SHA384 instead.  (Possibly excepting designer insanity. :)

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B