Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Jim Meyering schrieb:
>> But it's even easier to convert openssl's format
>> into one that is recognized.  Filter it through this:
>>     sed 's/(/ (/;s/\(= [0-9a-f]*\)$/ \1/'
>> E.g.,
>>     $ touch f; openssl md5 f
>>     MD5(f)= d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
>>     $ openssl md5 f | sed 's/(/ (/;s/\(= [0-9a-f]*\)$/ \1/'
>>     MD5 (f) = d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
> sure, I know that; but in the sense of user-friendly tools I (and most
> likely many other users too) would really appreciate if md5sum / sha1sum
> could support more of these other crappy formats as input ...
> I've summarized what I've found so far about the different tools and
> their output formats:
> personally md5sum / sha1sum are my preferred tools, but since I come
> every now and then over other formats I've now hacked my Perl script
> which automatically detects those crappy formats I get from other places
> where I have no control about what I get.

Hi Guenter,

I was on the fence...

Typically we say if you can do it easily via a script,
there's no need for the feature or change.  But this change
is so small and for a format so close to the existing format --
and there are no restrictions from the likes of POSIX, which
doesn't specify how conforming md5sum, sha*sum work --
that improved usability is a good enough argument.

Would you like to write the patch (including NEWS and
a small doc update), following these guidelines?

Reply via email to