On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:25 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 8/3/21 12:20 PM, Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list wrote:
> > + print "\nThe SHA256 checksum is base64 encoded and not hexadecimal,\n";
> > + print "which is the default for most checksum tools.\n\n";
>
> Perhaps this?
>
>
On 8/3/21 12:20 PM, Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list wrote:
+ print "\nThe SHA256 checksum is base64 encoded and not hexadecimal,\n";
+ print "which is the default for most checksum tools.\n\n";
Perhaps this?
print "\nThe SHA256 checksum is base64 encoded, instead of the\n";
Jim Meyering writes:
> Thanks, Simon! I too am all for B64-formatted checksums.
Good, it is a trade-off between output readability and code complexity.
Aligning 'sha*sum' with OpenBSD's 'sha*' tools would be nice, and base64
support is one missing piece.
> You may want to coordinate with
On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 8:40 AM Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jim Meyering writes:
>
> > Feel free to make the script generate a full fingerprint and even
> > (though it feels a little like giving up) add a checksum or two.
>
> I think checksums still serve a purpose.
>
> Many announcement e-mails are
Jim Meyering writes:
> Feel free to make the script generate a full fingerprint and even
> (though it feels a little like giving up) add a checksum or two.
I think checksums still serve a purpose.
Many announcement e-mails are OpenPGP signed (and sometimes with a
different key than the release
