Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38094 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68342 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2008 16:52:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Jun 2008 16:52:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=scottmac@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=scottmac@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 193.227.246.108 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: scottmac@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 193.227.246.108 ip246-108-v193.static.x-ip.net Received: from [193.227.246.108] ([193.227.246.108:50036] helo=lovelace.midden.org.uk) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5B/D0-58719-9C675484 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:52:27 -0400 Received: from office.vbulletin.com ([217.155.246.60] helo=[10.0.0.116]) by lovelace.midden.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K3ZkB-0008Oa-O8; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:52:22 +0100 Message-ID: <484576BC.1000809@php.net> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:52:12 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Derick Rethans , internals , Sara Golemon References: <4843CCB4.8050004@php.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 X-Spam_Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "lovelace.midden.org.uk", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Pierre Joye wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote: >> Pierre Joye wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Derick Rethans wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Pierre Joye wrote: >>>> >>>>> While working on the windows ports, I asked Sara about the mhash >>>>> status in regard of the new shiny ext/hash. The plan is to remove >>>>> ext/hash completely and emulate it in ext/hash to keep the BC. It >>>>> could even a configuration flag if one likes to be sure to clean his >>>>> code to use only the hash APIs. >>>> The mhash extension features some more versions of some algorithms: >>>> http://mhash.sourceforge.net/ But why bother changing it? >>> Which algo(s) (or algo version) is not supported by ext/hash? I did >>> not spot one after a quick read. >>> >> sha192 and sha224 >> snefru128 >> md2 >> >>>> I've not heard of any issues about ext/mhash. >>> My main reasons would be to do not have to maintain ext/mhash and the >>> libmhash Windows port. >>> >>> Cheers, >> I'm happy to see us removing a dependency, especially if it makes thigns >> easier to build on Windows. > > In case someone likes to do it, Scott has volunteered and has already > added some of the missing algo in hash. He will also add the BC layer. [...] Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Drop ext/mhash and add an emulation layer in ext/hash (5.3+), call for help From: scottmac@php.net (Scott MacVicar) Pierre Joye wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote: >> Pierre Joye wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Derick Rethans wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Pierre Joye wrote: >>>> >>>>> While working on the windows ports, I asked Sara about the mhash >>>>> status in regard of the new shiny ext/hash. The plan is to remove >>>>> ext/hash completely and emulate it in ext/hash to keep the BC. It >>>>> could even a configuration flag if one likes to be sure to clean his >>>>> code to use only the hash APIs. >>>> The mhash extension features some more versions of some algorithms: >>>> http://mhash.sourceforge.net/ But why bother changing it? >>> Which algo(s) (or algo version) is not supported by ext/hash? I did >>> not spot one after a quick read. >>> >> sha192 and sha224 >> snefru128 >> md2 >> >>>> I've not heard of any issues about ext/mhash. >>> My main reasons would be to do not have to maintain ext/mhash and the >>> libmhash Windows port. >>> >>> Cheers, >> I'm happy to see us removing a dependency, especially if it makes thigns >> easier to build on Windows. > > In case someone likes to do it, Scott has volunteered and has already > added some of the missing algo in hash. He will also add the BC layer. Appears that sha192 isn't supported by mhash and it looks like a typo in their documentation. So the only one that needs added in snerfru 128 and perhaps changing the current hash algorith of snefru to snefru256 and adding an alias. Scott