Can I ask you to take a look at the attached patch? It is not yet
satisfactory (at least, it needs to be forwardported to the CVS
version, as I worked against 5.2.1 because I wanted to install this
ASAP on my Debian boxen), but maybe we can start from this to discuss
what needs to be done.
David Madore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I am willing to do that.
Great.
I'll send you the copyright forms.
My requesting a `clean' patch means we're pretty picky,
and that the more of the following you can do, the better.
Can I ask you to take a look at the attached patch? It is not yet
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 04:30:51PM +, Eric Blake wrote:
Would it make more sense to have a single sha utility that takes
an argument of which algorithm to use, defaulting to the most
secure, then the user can define wrappers to invoke a non-default
algorithm? For example, 'sha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes:
Would it make more sense to have a single sha utility
That's just what I was about to suggest, except why not unify all the
coreutils checksumming utilities?
Of course it would take some work
___
Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes:
Would it make more sense to have a single sha utility
That's just what I was about to suggest, except why not unify all the
coreutils checksumming utilities?
I can see the appeal, but I like the ``one task, one