2008/6/2 Sebastian Nowicki <sebnow@gmail.com>:

On 02/06/2008, at 6:58 PM, Xavier wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Antonio Huete Jimeenz
> <ahuete.devel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For the checksum verification it might be ok to use openssl since
>> it's in
>> base for almost all BSD system. But what about linux? You'll have
>> to install
>> it before using makepkg, and this means a dependency.
>> In the case of CHOST usage, I haven't explained it fine. It's not
>> related to
>> this checksum issue. I'll try to explain it better in another
>> thread :)
> openssl is in the base group of archlinux, so it is supposed to be
> installed on every system.
> But when you look at the number and the importance of the packages
> requiring it, it is fully justified :
> http://archlinux.org/packages/122/
> I can even hardly imagine a linux distro without it. Or am I mistaken?

It is an issue, but openssl is only 7mb, which should be an issue on
almost all systems, and on embedded systems where disk space may be
scarce, Archlinux probably wouldn't run anyway (afaik there's a
project for that purpose). As Xavier mentioned it's in core, so with a
typical install (installing everything in base), it should be
installed on the system.

> As far as I know md5sum program in BSD is /sbin/md5, so maybe
> there's something like that in MacOS.

 From what I understand the BSD tools (md5, sha1, etc) all use cksum.
It uses completely different arguments than the Linux equivalent, so
it would be difficult to implement. I think openssl is the best

And there comes the idea I was talking about. I think that scripts should behave according to the operating from where they are running on. I'm doing some changes to scripts for doing so, but it will take me few days to have something useable.
I also think that every portable code should be welcome whenever it doesn't break anything in ArchLinux and made scripts runnable on other OSes.

What do you guys think?

Antonio Huete

pacman-dev mailing list