From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61CBB138334 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:01:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 582D2E086E; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:01:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15926E0823 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:01:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from computer (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:8380:7e7e:b886:8d52:6199:3925]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hanno) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B5EF34C2CB for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 21:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 23:00:53 +0200 From: Hanno =?UTF-8?B?QsO2Y2s=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] glep-0075: Update for reference implementation Message-ID: <20191024230053.258c8cfb@computer> In-Reply-To: References: <20191024115048.7408-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/vRFplFzj.u6j+z2SzAbmNov"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-Archives-Salt: 2434047b-c056-4690-8f25-bc63d97d6de1 X-Archives-Hash: 1dbd39432498b4d1c4da7c5ddd5d233a --Sig_/vRFplFzj.u6j+z2SzAbmNov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 22:39:06 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > In the rationale section, one reason given for the choice of the hash > algorithm (BLAKE2B) was to "avoid code duplication". Isn't that > argument moot, if all hashes supported by Portage are implemented? > (Or in other words, couldn't a faster hash function like MD5 be used?) FWIW blake2b is faster than md5. That was one of the design goals [1]. [1] https://blake2.net/ --=20 Hanno B=C3=B6ck https://hboeck.de/ mail/jabber: hanno@hboeck.de GPG: FE73757FA60E4E21B937579FA5880072BBB51E42 --Sig_/vRFplFzj.u6j+z2SzAbmNov Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEn3wfQCCb9MicJwD8dkhfABMwL8oFAl2yEQUACgkQdkhfABMw L8ouXhAAoooWdoYoPvrW8ELiLSkt1TLSaV7p56W5or0O0hrRcbM5JffzKG28C+Jl 4OQo4nX9vwp3fceglhxrq4Mix5+NtAplHvFRMK5WiGHR7hn77ZCTr0v4Do+FfT5U 5HN8sDdQINa1jcr1JwW7GJdihlRw/74wJjvpxc5FNB8QVnI/0svWeAOfqRLjZBco VoaN5KLvcsPiPekNfw61uy17WdZyOYFVDw0ugkT3UXA3Bhtask3b/zhtlXlMvVoN /C1oJaeC+Z1lYt5LMt5vuivDcgQrmcFq4DuASItM5/qeF5eo2ACkoNrY/JW+/fe+ S6QS56DVWYNyOuqGh2Q8Kq0qYkjy+e4yTVqgqfXePOh3gvGV22XDs0ZcEobnfk08 qDfVOmCfe26cYOauFtIxTHlZSaeBZW8pTPr/xTC/WhJT+JOqpij365uuizUGKC1p mERx2Q62CitS6TbYteUakhWOHZWoecvOs+cWUS+ibelIDKfQxiB4N8GMyXc0q49n q19tKbg4X4f9gXc80YRedz65vs8INB4IKA2O0EPafQSKr9zfK5A5M2QBLLaFZqjh jwoxPbOheocMuxI3x4E94QMnoxp563BqKrXO5DyjrcCrXTGjAUpawusBOJBP7OsP RE3yghegMi0nH1bgz0qQQguTqcNh7Y890esbmTxk11aY5Cuvb7I= =dp1u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/vRFplFzj.u6j+z2SzAbmNov--