Great work -- looks good to me, so +1 to commit.

Collin Funk <[email protected]> writes:

>       File: coreutils-9.9.42-b1ccb.tar.gz
>       SHA256 sum:   
> e25ec3ccd2358e101ad76dd97c1cf27a6bb80b987c4692564ee7524fd8429785
>       SHA3-256 sum: 
> 5b2ac1a5dc943e28ece021cb6c0874cd0a9790b13c3845718d52282a12205731

Why not use base64 format for SHA3-256 here?  Is there any tool that
support SHA3-256 and not base64 encoded hashes?

It would be nice to migrate to base64 encoded hashes for brevity.  I
think Bruno argued for hex encoded SHA256 hashes, but IIRC the argument
was that not all SHA256 tools supported base64 format.

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to