Control: tags -1 wontfix Dimitri John Ledkov: > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:29:39 -0800 Ryan Niebur <[email protected]> wrote: >> [despite having not yet replied to this thread, I am watching it...I >> just don't have the desire to add to yet another giant, silly thread on >> -devel. anyways...] >> >> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:21:42PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: >>> >>>> Your comments on the patch are obviously welcome (feel free to hack >>>> it your self if you want) >>>> >>>> Any chance to merge it before squeeze Freeze? >>> >>> Is debsums ready to handle other checksums types? >>> >> >> no. I will happily add support for it if there is consensus that a >> switch to sha256sums (or any other checksum algorithm, for that >> matter) should happen, and once packages begin to migrate to it. >> > > Hello everyone. > > I'd like to propose to move from md5sums to BLAKE2b-256 and BLAKE2s-256 for > 64/32 bit architectures respectively, and arch:all packages providing both. > > Mostly because it is faster than md5, sha1, sha2, sha3. > > How do I get started to benchmark this, and start providing ability for > packages to build these hash sums? > > Regards, > > Dimitri. >
Hi, The conclusion on this bug is that Guillem is working on redesigning some internal parts of the dpkg database and adding a "manifest" to deb files. The manifest will replace many parts of the control.tar of the .deb (at least both md5sums and conffiles). I do not feel it makes sense to add a new file to the control.tar just to deprecate it in a few years (not to mention a fictive dh_checksums tool). Any progress in this area is therefore currently waiting for progress on the dpkg front as well as a final specification of the manifest file. ~Niels
