> I can track the original code change in the v5 posted here, which has
> been using a (> 1) for the sake of the plural message, at least that
> feels like the author's intention:
I read the intention there differently, as errmsg_plural has been
available since 2009.
> I would still just adjust the one-off in the if condition at the end.
> Reporting also a WARNING even if we have 1 checksum failure feels like
> the right thing to do.
I did that in v2, I also adjusted the total warning I mentioned earlier.
