FYI, the guide says: "For the best security, use md5, sha1, and rmd160 checksum types." Presumably someone could update it if necessary.
Scott On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 16:34, [email protected] wrote: > >> Revision: 87705 >> http://trac.macports.org/changeset/87705 >> Author: [email protected] >> Date: 2011-12-01 14:34:36 -0800 (Thu, 01 Dec 2011) >> Log Message: >> ----------- >> libwnck: update to version 2.30.7. > >> -checksums md5 323127c546d4b6796ae569f3da0892ab \ >> - sha1 a7ef8842f85249878fd0389ae6c1b303d41e9623 \ >> - rmd160 d9c228bfe1257de9b1b1e8a3fc3b8c38d6e665d9 >> +checksums sha256 >> 8be84d5333f0ade0e61af9f4cbf7685cb7cce2aa0ee32f53bac32107a81fe194 > > Remember that we do still want to list two different checksum types for each > distfile. sha256 may be considered a secure algorithm today, but by using two > different checksum types for each file, we ensure that if ever one of the > algorithms becomes known to be insecure in the future, we won't have a > problem. > > _______________________________________________ > macports-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
