On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:10:32AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 05:09:48PM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Trevor Johnson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > You misunderstand.  What I requested is output from "digest sha1 foo" in
> > > > the format that "openssl dgst -sha1 foo" has, and likewise for "digest
> > > > rmd160 foo" to have the same format as "openssl dgst -rmd160".  That way,
> > > > if it ever becomes desirable to use OpenSSL for hashing--for instance, in
> > > > a future world where pre-1999 versions of NetBSD needn't to be fully
> > > > supported--such massaging will not be necessary.  I've appended a trivial
> > > > patch which does this.  For the SHA-1 and RIPEMD-160 hashes, the slightly
> > > > different output is unnecessary.  MD5 hashes have already been calculated,
> > > > so I don't propose changing them.
> > > 
> > > Looks fine to me. 
> > 
> > It doesn't look fine to me, since this is incompatible with the *BSD md5(1)
> > output format.
> 
> 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
bsd.pkg.mk to work out whether I was dealing with an md5-style
checksum, or an openssl-style checksum.

Regards,
Alistair