[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Enhance checksum support

On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 12:20:57PM -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote:
> Isn't sha256 a little much for a file of this size? Would it be worth 
> using a smaller hash for smaller files? With both lines you are storing 
> 122 bytes to uniquely identify a 355 byte file named foo. If you really 
> need multiple checksums, why not do something more of the type:
> Checksums: sha1 sha256 sha_N
>  - {sha256} - foo
>  {sha1} - - bar
> Files:
>  {md5} 355 foo
>  {md5} 10 bar
>  {md5} 1 baz
> You wast less space identifying the hash and it is still easy to parse. 

I don't think the space is really a issue for anything. Most source
files are actually much bigger than the example sizes we used here...

The current question is whether we want two separate Checksums/Files(*)
fields (which was Raphael's proposal implemented by my second patch)
or if the checksums information should remain in one field with the
file list (which was aj's proposal).

> I assume the Files section can not break and requires the "md5 size 
> name" format for older/unsupported tools.

yes. If we want to change the format of the Files: field it might indeed
be better and cleaner to rename it on the way as aj suggested.

Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Reply to: