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 2E008138334 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 50320E088F; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:39:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 10D43E088B for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:39:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15 (host2092.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB60A34C2BC; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:39:15 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] glep-0075: Update for reference implementation References: <20191024115048.7408-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 22:39:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20191024115048.7408-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Micha?= =?utf-8?Q?=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny=22's?= message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2019 13:50:48 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 554d29dd-22db-4887-b536-96836cf7cae7 X-Archives-Hash: 559a71f7d77723997b65130f00011e2a --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > +in 2=E2=81=B4 =3D 16 directories), and each of this directories would ha= ve s/this/these/ (This was there before, but can be corrected while at it.) > +The implementations are only required to support cutoffs being multiples s/The implementations/Implementations/ > +and maintaining mirrors via ``emirrordist``. The implementation > +supports both listed layouts, with all hash functions supported > +by Portage and cutoffs being multiples of 4. 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?) Ulrich --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEZlHkP3TnuTbxrN0HwwkGhRxhwnMFAl2yC+oACgkQwwkGhRxh wnPdswgAvKCUlH9xgyVn1irAKaGXi0wx+EYoPOVsTEkPzkY8DjaihrpNj72rL1Y5 f6uAPLJLHCsGNIQOywz8RvVPQ8UBSIGhtIBv/QOFedrdN5mIGCBx7Si1+4fWLZ1N JoQ2kwndjjdHlwMK7p1x/I8ELeGpg/vpQ5bltC9AlBOFcccOLZAjJ7FpHktlhJGo 82NjNb+9rNT95fOydlvSdUiaHMg4qZwfXrK/5JRFJbEb6/0MyUKps9oAhKBic+Tv gDTpoXwdnRz+rNeDCQmmh9/7vlVzIMc5t7MokqT+/tBvN6Q/rsX7Sy+99mrhsnDN YZNmeW9yx7WX94SNXi5XoDyAPubjzA== =wDKs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--