Re: RFE: hash-type in sum utils

[Jim Meyering]

Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 10:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 08/22/2012 03:00 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
>>> Hi, I haven't heard from this thread since I posted the last patch,
>>> are there still things to correct or should I consider it closed?
>>
>> The --tag description in the texinfo is a bit sparse.  It says:
>>
>> "If the file is not binary, put a leading whitespace before the
>> algorithm's name."
>>
>> More accurately it could say:
>>
>> "When operating in @option{--text} mode, put a leading space before
>> the algorithm's name.
>> On @option{--text} mode significant systems, this enables
>> compatibility with existing
>> BSD (binary) checksums, while also allowing operating in @option{--text} 
>> mode".
>>
>> It's worth considering though, do we want to support --text mode
>> at all with --tag?  I.E. we could avoid the default leading space,
>> and have --tag imply --binary and be mutually exclusive with --text?
>
> I'm fine with --tag implying --binary.  --text mode is almost always the
> wrong thing to use, and it should have never been the default on
> text-mode systems, nor should it be the default output (we're stuck with
> that for normal output, where the presence of '*' to indicate binary
> output, but only from systems where text mode differs, causes no end of
> grief; but for BSD output we don't have to repeat the mistake).
>
>>
>> I'm 60:40 for having --tag imply --binary given the above.
>
> I'm 90:10 for having --tag imply --binary.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Simpler is better.