Ian Jackson writes ("Proposed resolution Re: md5sum <FILE produces spurious ` -' in output"): > Well, now there are four of us who've replied so it seems we're not > going to be lacking in participants, and no-one has criticised my > draft, so I hereby formally propose the resolution below. If I don't > hear any objections I'll call for a vote in a few days.
No-one has objected, so I hereby call for a vote on my resolution, which I proposed earlier. I vote yes, obviously. Here's the resolution again, for reference. 1. The Technical Committe has considered the questions raised in Bug#164591 and Bug#164889, concerning the output format from md5sum when the input is stdin. 2. For the reasons discussed below we agree with the submitters of the bugs, that md5sum without arguments should print only the checksum. 3. We will refer to the alternative output formats as follows: * The `bare' format: the checksum (in hex) followed by a single newline. * The `annotated' format: the checksum (in hex) followed by two spaces, a hyphen, and a newline. 4. This decision discusses and covers only the case where md5sum calculates and prints a single checksum, of data fed to it on standard input. Other uses of md5sum are not discussed, except to note that we do not see any need to suggest any changes to those behaviours. 5. The bare format is usually more convenient. It would therefore be good for there to be a simple way to produce it. 6. Regarding the compatibility risks of changing the behaviour, we note that: i. The behaviour of Debian's md5sum has varied, changing several times between the bare and the annotated format. ii. Different implementations of md5sum have different output formats, so that the most widespread behaviour has not been consistent either. iii. It seems unlikely to us that there are significant numbers of programs which depend on the annotated format. 7. Although we do not believe the annotated format is useful except for compatibility reasons, it is acceptable for there to be a way to generate the annotated format. 8. Other GNU utilities for reporting on the contents of files are not very consistent regarding when they print input filenames, but few utilities print the `-' when the program reads from stdin and `-' was not supplied as a command line argument. 9. At least two versions of md5sum have been used in Debian - the one currently in the dpkg package which originated with Colin Plumb, and the GNU version. Likewise, there is some discussion as to whether md5sum should continue to be supplied by dpkg or by the Debian coreutils package. We do not address the issue of which version of md5sum should be used, or which package it should reside in. Our conclusions apply to the utility md5sum no matter which version is chosen and no matter which package it is in. 10. Accordingly we request (or require, if the required supermajority is reached according to the Constitution) that the maintainer(s) of the package(s) containing md5sum cooperate to change the behaviour, as shown in the following examples: i. Output format when no argument supplied: $ md5sum </dev/null | cat -vet d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e$ $ ii. Output when single `-' argument supplied: either $ md5sum - </dev/null | cat -vet d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e -$ $ or $ md5sum - </dev/null | cat -vet d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e$ $ We recommend, but do not insist on, the former. iii. For other combinations of arguments we do not request any change in behaviour. 11. We request (or require) that the package maintainer indicate whether they would prefer the bug submitter to prepare a patch. If so then when the submitter has prepared a reasonable patch, the maintainer should accept and apply it if they approve; otherwise, or if they prefer, they should do the necessary work themselves. 12. We recommend that, if applicable, the resulting patch be sent upstream for inclusion in the GNU coreutils. If Debian continues to use the non-GNU version, we recommend that the bug submitter prepare a patch to GNU coreutils and submit it to the GNU project. 13. We note that the issues surrounding sha1sum are similar to those surrounding md5sum. We have not been asked to rule on sha1sum but expect that if the question arose our decision would be the same. -- Ian Jackson, at home. Local/personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/