From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 28 17:09:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA06558 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:09:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from ocean.campus.luth.se (ocean.campus.luth.se [130.240.194.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06553 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:08:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se) Received: (from karpen@localhost) by ocean.campus.luth.se (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA07555; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:16:45 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Karpberg Message-Id: <199710290116.CAA07555@ocean.campus.luth.se> Subject: Re: more general checksum command, replacing md5? In-Reply-To: from Brandon Gillespie at "Oct 28, 97 12:55:30 pm" To: brandon@roguetrader.com (Brandon Gillespie) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:16:45 +0100 (CET) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk According to Brandon Gillespie: > Just curious, with the inclusion of SHS hashing in crypt(), would anybody > consider a generalized checksum command? It wouldn't be too hard to make > a general 'cs' or 'checksum' command that accepts arguments to determine > the algorithm being used... ala: Er... Why not, in that case, just add those options to the chsum program? Having more then one general checksum program seems to be overdoing it. /Mikael