[Toybox] patch: add built-in versions of sha-2 family hash functions

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 2:08 PM Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> On 6/21/21 5:19 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > Looking at toybox's help texts, I noticed a few more:
> >
> > free [-bkmgt]
> >         Display the total, free and used amount of physical memory and
> > swap space.
> >         -bkmg*t Output units (default is bytes)
> > ^^^^^^^ in procps-ng 3.3.15, "free -t" is not "terabytes", it's --total
>
> Probably an accident. (The original submission just had -bkmg and no other
> options, I probably saw -t in the old one line --help output and added what it
> "obviously meant" when doing a cleanup pass, otherwise I would have added -ped too).
>
> Nobody's mentioned it before now because the command's not in SUSv4, not in LSB
> 4.1, and its output is harder for scripts to parse than /proc/meminfo:
>
> $ echo $(($(sed -nE 's/^(Mem|Swap)Total:[ \t]*([0-9]*).*/+\2/p' /proc/meminfo)))
> 33006412
>
> I tend to wait for people to show up with a complaint attached to a real-world
> use case and do lazy-binding decision making then. Now that somebody's showed up
> who cares, would:
>
>   A) always showing total
>   B) implementing --total longopt without the -t short option
>   C) changing -t to show total instead of terabytes
>   D) removing -t
>
> be less unpleasant?

C or D.
IOW: avoid having an incompatible option.

> To me, option C is the worst because that's INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT, which is a
> thing toybox tries to avoid being:

And dd options style is internally inconsistent with most of Unix utilities.

Perfectionism is not achievable, real-world evolution of APIs
ends up with inconsistencies like that.

> But this is not a widely used command (because /proc/meminfo exists), and
> systems too small to have /proc mounted generally already know exactly how much
> memory they have and/or do their own sysinfo() call in a monolithic app, so
> you're the first person to care enough to mention it.
>
> > hexedit FILE
> >         Hexadecimal file editor/viewer. All changes are written to
> > disk immediately.
> >         -r      Read only (display but don't edit)
> > ^^^^^^^ hexedit 1.5 has no such opt
>
> So you're saying that an interactive GUI utility (which cannot be used in a
> non-interactive mode) may not be compatible with existing shell scripts. I'm not
> convinced this issue is why?

Just an observation. I'm not saying you must remove -r.