Re: [lmi] Bad md5sum.exe link

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 23:31:20 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> If we can wrap our existing MD5 or CRC32 code and build a standalone
GC> msw binary, that'd be plenty good enough.

 This really shouldn't be difficult to do. And, FWIW, I can volunteer to do
it.

GC> > GC> In the short term, it's not an obstacle for us, so I'll just flag
GC> > GC> it for eventual action.
GC> > 
GC> >  Sure. Out of curiosity, are we still using Savannah tracker for things
GC> > like this or is there something else?
GC> 
GC> That thing's too heavy and balky, so I use '~/notes' for this purpose.
GC> It would probably be better to add a flat-text file somewhere in the
GC> public repository for this purpose. Of course, you can maintain your
GC> own in the vz/ subdirectory if you like.

 I already have my own TODO locally, but I think it'd be nice to have
something more centralized. A simple flat-text file is not too bad,
although I'd prefer Markdown, if only because it can be nicely highlighted
in Vim. So what about having a TODO.md?

 FWIW there are also different ways to leverage Git for storing TODO notes
outside of the files, but I don't think you'd be interested in anything
more complex than a plain file, would you?

GC> > GC> I think it's used also at run time (for end users who don't know
GC> > GC> the Black Speech incantation), and we definitely have a unit test
GC> > GC> or two that use it (though perhaps in a context where any program
GC> > GC> at all would do, and we chose this one only because it seemed handy).
GC> > 
GC> >  For the unit tests, Cygwin md5sum.exe would do just as well, but I've
GC> 
GC> Except that, when cross compiling, an msw binary is needed

 Oops, yes, I didn't think about this case.

GC> > In the medium term it might be better to replace this with a built-in
GC> > version, it would mean one dependency less and would also speed up
GC> > the program startup a little.
GC> 
GC> Sure. I don't recall whether there was some special advantage to using
GC> an external program for this, but it would seem that inserting calls to
GC> lmi's own (adopted from the GNU project) MD5 implementation, at the same
GC> place as that system_command() call, would be an equivalent obstacle to
GC> mischief.

 AFAICS, yes, it would. And, as above, we could certainly do this, just
please let me know if/when you'd like to do it.

 Thanks,
VZ