[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160807145434.GA6867@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 17:54:34 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: JtR homepage update; Windows builds
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 09:09:59AM -0500, jfoug wrote:
> I feel that propagation of 'DOS' line endings is a very bad thing. Also,
> renaming to a
> .txt file, that is probably very questionable also. Why do you want
> to do that?
I am not sufficiently familiar with modern Windows (except for making
these builds and doing other occasional little things, I don't use
Windows), which is why I ask in here. My understanding is that there's
still a notion of "filename extensions", even though multiple ones are
allowed now, and the last one affects file associations, so that you'd
be offered to view a .txt file as a text file when clicked, and having
DOS line endings it would display correctly in whatever app Windows will
launch for this (notepad or the like). Are you saying that
"extension-less" files that just happen to be text, and with Unix line
endings, work just as well these days in Windows file managers and text
file viewers? My guess was that it'd vary across systems/settings and
user habits (different file managers in use, etc.)
> This is not dos any more, it is Windows and CMD. There is no need for
> line endings
> for sure, which will cause invalid files, that will likely make their
> way back into the
> code base, to only have to be changed. In no way should script files be
> converted.
OK, so you feel strongly against line endings conversion for scripts.
What about the documentation files? The config files?
Related: IIRC, Cygwin offers to enable line endings conversion when you
install it, and this probably affects files such as john.pot and
john.log. Don't we want them to have DOS line endings? I think that's
how it has been in the Windows builds of JtR I've been making years ago,
and is probably still the same in this latest build.
> Also, basing windows build on 64 bit is probably the right way to go, as
> long as
> there is a 32 bit build that can be downloaded.
I agree. We definitely need to produce an official 64-bit Windows build
for the next jumbo release.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
