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.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
