Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> writes: > BTW it's tempting to use tagged format in the above to simplify things for > users, > and also avoid FAILED messages for mixed checksum input. I.e.: > > Here are the SHA256 and SHA3-256 checksums: > > SHA256 (coreutils-9.9.35-cf973.tar.gz) = > tWYsM2przwPj1p9c1T0noDxRKTFixSWmZX5tzPZ6cW8= > SHA3-256 (coreutils-9.9.35-cf973.tar.gz) = > FgV2UuDSv+U3Ud9fdSA5mWRGQYZ9CAKx3wYCHiTm3Ls= > SHA256 (coreutils-9.9.35-cf973.tar.xz) = > BkhqCaxeKIT51WtP73fuja5ekZYb4DDhPzh88ux2glo= > SHA3-256 (coreutils-9.9.35-cf973.tar.xz) = > bD/kFhX/O1uQ9ciHUQygPa8YyotTBrmsV5Do+49yAV8= > > Verify the base64 SHA256 checksums with cksum --check > from coreutils-9.2 or OpenBSD's cksum since 2007. > Also verify the base64 SHA3-256 checksums with cksum --check from > coreutils-9.9.
Yes, Colin, please use base64 encoding here, at least for SHA3-256. There is no legacy here, right? Anyone who want to verify SHA3-256's ought to have a tool that supports base64 encoded checksums. I'm also +1 on tagged format since it handle empty leading SPC better than untagged, wich makes it easier to paste the lines from the announcement e-mail into a file without having lots of editing: Default, tagged format: jas@kaka:~$ echo foo > README jas@kaka:~$ (echo -n " "; cksum -a sha256 README) > README.SHA256 jas@kaka:~$ cksum -c README.SHA256 && echo ok README: OK ok Untagged format: jas@kaka:~$ (echo -n " "; cksum --untagged -a sha256 README) > README.SHA256 jas@kaka:~$ cksum -c README.SHA256 && echo ok cksum: README.SHA256: no properly formatted checksum lines found jas@kaka:~$ Surprisingly, using a text editor is not a universal ability, and I've had this issue come up occasionally. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
