Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> writes: > Collin Funk <[email protected]> writes: > >> Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> 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. >> >> It looks like it is only supported by GNU Coreutils and OpenBSD. I don't >> see any mention of base64 support in FreeBSD or NetBSD's man pages for >> cksum, sha256sum, etc. > > Do FreeBSD/NetBSD support SHA3-256? If you can't verify SHA3-256 you > probably won't care if the string you cannot verify is in hex or base64. > > Looks like not: > > https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sha256sum&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+16.0-CURRENT&arch=default&format=html > https://man.netbsd.org/cksum.1
Well they can still use the SHA256 checksum. I think it would be better to not use base64 here, since maintainers who want it can just use --cksum-checksums. Collin
