about keeping a checksums table in a separate file

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Monday February 01 2016 13:16:03 Daniel J. Luke wrote:

>Maybe, instead of having your portfile reference an external file (with contents generated from port -v checksum), we should add a `port checksum` option that updates the Portfile with the (new) checksums?

I'd have suggested that myself, but there are 2 reasons I didn't:
- it seems not trivial at all to do this robustly for all possible configurations (ex: that same KF5 Portfile with its 60-something subports)
- letting `port checksum` update the checksums removes much of the interest of verifying checksums ("the checksum doesn't match, do you want to update it?")

R.