[rb-general] rb formalism

Bernhard M. Wiedemann bernhardout at lsmod.de
Wed Dec 19 11:29:39 CET 2018

On 18/12/2018 15.44, Eric Myhre wrote:
> I think it's fairly open to interpretation.  Implementing it as
> h(h(➡),■) would be more or less the same semantics, no?

you could even use h(h(➡),h(■))
so that you only have to hash ■ output data once.
A bit like .buildinfo files
or foo.tar.xz.sha256.asc signatures

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/attachments/20181219/05ce3887/attachment.sig>

More information about the rb-general mailing list