[76684] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm/Portfile

Anders F Björklund afb at macports.org
Sun Mar 6 02:24:15 PST 2011

Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>> I guess the checksums are the next lint complaint ?
>> Since the old ports are still using MD5, I mean...
> Less important than nagging about ports still using md5 at this point would be to nag about ports only using a single checksum type for a distfile. :/ In such a nag, it could be recommended to use sha1 and rmd160.

Or just one sha256, but yeah that is what I meant.

It would be more useful to add the download size,
than to use two separate 160-bit checksum lines ?

And it doesn't really become a "nag" until it is
forced upon you through email on each port commit...

Before that, it's more of your friendly "lint" tool. :-)


More information about the macports-dev mailing list