Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
* Henning Makholm:
> Scripsit Peter Samuelson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> You may laugh if you wish, but I think it's annoying to have to move to
>> a hash function whose hexadecimal representation takes 64 bytes, which
>> doesn't leave much room on an 80-column line to describe what the hash
>> is hashing. Maybe by the time coreutils ships a sha256sum program, the
>> world will have settled upon BASE64, which requires only 43 bytes.
> Why wait for the world to settle? Would there be anything wrong with
> writing a sha256sum program that outputs base64 right now?
I wouldn't use real base64, though, because it would mean that you can
use its hashed output as a file name.