On 11/08/2010 02:30 AM, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > 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.
Not to my knowledge. The main point of these build-info tags was to provide as much information as possible as to how wget was built, and to illuminate the choices that were made by such build scripts as "configure"; I may have been overstating it a tad by saying it'd be useful if md5 breaks, though I do feel that just because they've never been broken before doesn't mean they won't later. And I have personally witnessed dynamic link problems produce errors in an MD5 sum routine (in mod_php, not wget), in which case this information would've been useful. But yeah, if there's no longer a choice being made, then illuminating that non-choice isn't helpful. -- Micah J. Cowan http://micah.cowan.name/
