On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:49:45AM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote: >On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 01:50:32AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> I'm now seeing another minor issue. "jigdo-file ls" shows >> adduser_3.59_all.deb to have rsyncsum kRjI35yjRzk whereas my own debug >> tools show it to be kRjI35yjRz5 - note the last character is >> changed. > >Hmm, I believe your base64 implementation might be buggy. :-/ ... >I just compared our two implementations of base64. Did you use my code as a >reference for your work or is there only one way to implement it?? Anyway, >the algorithm is almost exactly the same except for some tiny differences. >Applying the patch below (untested, sorry) might make a difference. Correct. Your patch fixes it. A base64 algorithm is always going to be rather similar... :-) >> Richard, PLEASE for future versions of jigdo drop this silly bastardised >> base64 encoding that you're using. It makes life _very_ difficult when >> debugging things if the checksum output format is not simple. Base 16 >> good, base 64 bad. > >Um, I'll think about it, but I don't see a problem here. IMHO the only >thing that's more difficult is the implementation of the binary->baseX >conversion, so if /that/ is correct, everything should be fine... :-/ The problem is that the rest of the world outputs large binary data into text format by using hexadecimal; it's easy to understand and much easier to output and (more importantly) parse in a variety of languages. The only reason I can see in favour of the base64 encoding is a reduction in output size, and I'm not convinced that the small gains are worth the hassle. Please consider moving to the more standard format... :-P -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com Is there anybody out there?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature