| 1 |
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 22:39:06 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> In the rationale section, one reason given for the choice of the hash |
| 5 |
> algorithm (BLAKE2B) was to "avoid code duplication". Isn't that |
| 6 |
> argument moot, if all hashes supported by Portage are implemented? |
| 7 |
> (Or in other words, couldn't a faster hash function like MD5 be used?) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
FWIW blake2b is faster than md5. That was one of the design goals [1]. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
[1] https://blake2.net/ |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-- |
| 15 |
Hanno Böck |
| 16 |
https://hboeck.de/ |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
mail/jabber: hanno@××××××.de |
| 19 |
GPG: FE73757FA60E4E21B937579FA5880072BBB51E42 |
Archives