robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Sep 17 14:53:16 PDT 2006
On Sunday 17 September 2006 12:38, Alex Merry wrote:
> On Sunday 17 September 2006 00:00, Robert Connolly wrote:
> > I'm not much of an sh scripter. I think a shell script would be
> > better than patching Coreutils to use libcrypto. OpenSSL also
openssl already does what md5sum does, and more. Patching Coreutils is higher
maintenance because I'm pretty sure GNU wouldn't accept the patch, and even
if they did we'd have two applications which do exactly the same thing.
Meanwhile, OpenSSL might accept a portable sh script to mimic md5sum/sha1sum,
in a contrib/ directory. Either way, I think this could be the beginning of
integrating OpenSSL over the core system... perhaps libcrypto can replace
libcrypt from libc later on (for shadow-utils). From my perspective this is
better because it helps concentrate our development efforts... when OpenSSL
adds a new algorithm, or upgrades an existing one, it would be available to
all applications which use crypto, and ditto /dev/crypto is used.
> > supports a few other digest algorithms. A single script could have
> > md5sum/sha1sum/ripemd160sum symlinks to it, using:
> I happen to agree with the FSF that programs should not change their
> behaviour because their name has been changed, but that's just personal
> preference. I think there should be an override option that selects the
> digest independently of the executable name, at least.
It's possible to move /usr/bin/md5sum to /usr/bin/md5sum.coreutils, and have
a /usr/bin/md5sum.openssl script, and /usr/bin/md5sum symlinked to one, but
if they both do exactly the same thing with exactly the same output and
options, I don't see the point.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the hlfs-dev