On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 10:44:52PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > > > Yes, I agree that the standard format is the best one to use, but I was > > asking about the name of the file, not it's format. For example, if I'm > > going to share a directory with 1000 files, it would be inconvenient to > > save each file's hash as a separate file, and just add a .sha1 extension > > (resulting in 2000 files). So therefore I would store all the hashes in > > one file. But what should this file be called? sha1sums? hashes.sha1? > > digests.sha1? Is the .sha1 extension important? > > One pseudo-standard in place is to use uppercase for important meta-files > like README and INSTALL. One named "CHECKSUMS" or "CHECKSUMS.sha1" > should stand out enough. A signed version could be "CHECKSUMS.asc" > or even CHECKSUMS.sha1.asc, etc.
Red Hat and others use a filename of "MD5SUM", which is a clearsigned file containing the human readable MD5 hashes. I like your CHECKSUMS idea better since MD5 isn't the way to go any longer. David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users