Use SHA.jl to provide backing checksum support for cross-platform compatibility

There's no real downside; they're just longer and unwieldy. We could also
argue why not invent a longer standard such as SHA-1024, but since all
other package managers consider 256 bits to be sufficient, I think the
shorter length is nicer.  I see no compelling argument for having a
128-character SHA be necessary for humans to enter and verify if something
goes wrong.


On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Stefan Karpinski <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> In src/dependencies.jl:
>
> >
> >  function sha_check(path, sha)
> > -    calc_sha = shasum(path)
> > -    if calc_sha != nothing && calc_sha != sha
> > +    ctx = SHA256_CTX()
>
> Since these don't need to be checked by humans, what's the down side of
> using 512?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/JuliaLang/BinDeps.jl/pull/88/files#r16007682>.
>