Micah Cowan <[email protected]> writes: > Yeah, that's always been the case. The question has always been: from > where did we get our md5 implementation? builtin, openssl, or ...? We > used to prefer openssl's and then fallback on a builtin one (which > probably came from libiberty, and shares parentage with gnulib's). In > some circumstances we also used another source (one provided on Sun OS > or OpenSolaris). This tag's purpose was to identify which one was > being used, so if anything went wrong, we'd know whose md5 > implementation to blame :)
Has that ever happened for anyone? It seems that even when MD5 "fails", it will be a failed compilation or at worst failed dynamic linking, not incorrect run-time operation. I would agree with Giuseppe (and you, if I understand you correctly) that +md5/<source> can be safely removed.
