"port -d extract" still returns md5 checksum

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 19, 2011, at 06:43, Joshua Root wrote:

> On 2011-6-19 21:37 , Marko Käning wrote:
>>> No, existing use of md5 will continue to work for a long time. Using md5
>>> isn't a problem, not using anything else is. Using md5 alone should
>>> probably become an error in a future version.
>> OK
>> 
>>> The "correct checksum line may be" message when the checksums don't
>>> match just uses whatever types are defined in the portfile, unless there
>>> are none, in which case it suggests two default types, neither of which
>>> is md5.
>> I see. Since the ports in question had two checksums neither of which was md5 as a consequence md5 was suggested by port. ;-)
> 
> What I wrote applies to trunk/2.0, if you're using 1.9 it might still
> suggest md5 all the time, I forget.

"uses whatever types are defined in the portfile" is new to me; I haven't seen that with 1.9. I haven't tried trunk.