Message415846
Because I don't think blake3 or blake2 _(though we've shipped it already so there's a challenge in making changes https://bugs.python.org/issue47095)_ are important enough to be _guaranteed_ present in all builds (our release binaries would include them). Depending on an external library for those to exist makes sense.
I do not want CPython to get into the business of maintaining a complicated build process in-tree for third party architecture specific optimized code for non-core functionality purposes. That is best handled outside of the project & on CI and binary release hosts.
I'm okay with blake3 in hashlib if we can avoid gaining another /impl/ tree that is a copy of large third party code and our own build system for it.
Q: What benefits does having blake3 builtin vs getting it from PyPI bring?
Q: Should we instead provide a way for third party provided hashes to be registered in `hashlib` similar to `codecs.register()`?
I view the NIST standard hashes as important enough to attempt to guarantee as present (all the SHAs and MD5) as built-in. Others should really demonstrate practical application popularity to gain included battery status rather than just using PyPI. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2022-03-23 01:12:18 | gregory.p.smith | set | recipients:
+ gregory.p.smith, larry, christian.heimes, mgorny, Zooko.Wilcox-O'Hearn, jstasiak, oconnor663, corona10, xtreak, kmaork |
2022-03-23 01:12:18 | gregory.p.smith | set | messageid: <1647997938.81.0.617572467556.issue39298@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2022-03-23 01:12:18 | gregory.p.smith | link | issue39298 messages |
2022-03-23 01:12:18 | gregory.p.smith | create | |
|