Bug 247758

Summary: [PATCH] RFE: use md5 instead of mdfour
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Andy Shevchenko <andy>
Component: ccacheAssignee: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta>
Status: CLOSED UPSTREAM QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideKeywords: MoveUpstream
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-07-11 16:39:42 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Proposed patch none

Description Andy Shevchenko 2007-07-11 06:22:58 EDT
Description of problem:
On the huge amount of the compiled sources the mdfour algorithm can wrong on 
some objects. The first idea is to switch to the md5 hash instead of mdfour.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Current release.

Additional info:
Please review atached patch.
Comment 1 Andy Shevchenko 2007-07-11 06:22:58 EDT
Created attachment 158932 [details]
Proposed patch
Comment 2 Ville Skyttä 2007-07-11 13:49:56 EDT
While this might be a good idea, I think it is something that should be done
upstream instead of maintaining a big patch in the Fedora package.  There's a
ccache mailing list, could you send this there?  See http://ccache.samba.org/
Comment 3 Andy Shevchenko 2007-07-11 15:37:42 EDT
I try to send this info to the list w/o subscription.
Anyway I've quickly review the maillist archive and I consider the author does 
not response in it. And I think is not a problem to provide Fedora package 
with a couple of the patches.
Comment 4 Ville Skyttä 2007-07-11 16:39:42 EDT
Well, it is a backwards incompatible change even within Fedora, and also
incompatible with non-patched (non-Fedora) ccache implementations which may be a
problem with shared/networked cache dirs.  The Fedora package maintainer's job
(myself at the moment) is to cope with the added maintenance burden and has to
answer for the introduced incompatibilities.  Before upstream indicates support
for the idea or includes the patch, I don't think it's the right thing to do that.

If the upstream maintainer does not respond to list posts, maybe sending the
message directly to him would work better.