On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 22:39 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, Michał Górny wrote: > > +in 2⁴ = 16 directories), and each of this directories would have > > s/this/these/ (This was there before, but can be corrected while at it.) > > > +The implementations are only required to support cutoffs being multiples > > s/The implementations/Implementations/
Both fixed in place. Since they're grammar fixes, I suppose there's no need to send v2 over it. > > > +and maintaining mirrors via ``emirrordist``. The implementation > > +supports both listed layouts, with all hash functions supported > > +by Portage and cutoffs being multiples of 4. > > In the rationale section, one reason given for the choice of the hash > algorithm (BLAKE2B) was to "avoid code duplication". Isn't that argument > moot, if all hashes supported by Portage are implemented? (Or in other > words, couldn't a faster hash function like MD5 be used?) That's a very Portage-centric thinking. Technically, today's PM needs only to be implement SHA512 and BLAKE2B. The former is legacy, so in the future we will probably throw it away and either leave BLAKE2B only, or add another new hash. In either case, BLAKE2B is the most future-proof choice today. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
