Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:40:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/28988: We need more simple message digesting tools Message-ID: <200107191140.f6JBebJ91621@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/28988; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: Anders Nordby <anders@fix.no> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/28988: We need more simple message digesting tools Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:38:17 -0700 Anders Nordby <anders@fix.no> writes: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:20:00PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote: > >> md5(1) is just a frontend for libmd. If I make md5(1) use > >> libcrypto instead, would that be better? > > Why? What's wrong with: > > > > ln -s /usr/bin/openssl md5 > > The fact that md5 dgst -sha1 does not make sence, and that md5(1) is > expected to output differently The output is a problem; I agree. > and have other options. This is not. Options can be added. IIRC, the only non-debug option that's missing is -s. > > works for sha, sha1, ripemd160, and a few other algorithms. The only > > thing wrong with it is that openssl doesn't support some of the > > options md5(1) does, and has a slightly different output format. > > Is there a problem with having both md5/rmd160/sha1(1) and openssl(1)? > As long as we have libmd and they all work/are correct, I think not. It'd be nice to minimize code duplication in the tree. If openssl(1) didn't have a different format and had -s, we'd be all set. The latter shouldn't be too difficult to add. The former might be a problem, but it's solvable. Perhaps we can convince the OpenSSL folks to add our format around an #ifdef or something. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200107191140.f6JBebJ91621>