On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 23:30 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 20/12/16 22:28, Christopher wrote:
> >
> > What's with the new sources format?
> > The old format, I could do `md5sum -c sources`
> > Why not make the new format with SHA512 follow the same pattern, so
&g
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:31 PM Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 20/12/16 22:28, Christopher wrote:
> > What's with the new sources format?
> > The old format, I could do `md5sum -c sources`
> > Why not make the new format with SHA512 follow the same pattern, so I
> cou
On 20/12/16 22:28, Christopher wrote:
> What's with the new sources format?
> The old format, I could do `md5sum -c sources`
> Why not make the new format with SHA512 follow the same pattern, so I could
> do: `shasum -c sources` or `sha512sum -c sources`?
>
> Is there an
What's with the new sources format?
The old format, I could do `md5sum -c sources`
Why not make the new format with SHA512 follow the same pattern, so I could
do: `shasum -c sources` or `sha512sum -c sources`?
Is there any standard command-line tool to parse this new format, or do I
just