From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Aug 7 23:08:31 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA13332 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 23:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ime.net (ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA13324 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kimiko.tcguy.net (buxton-4.ime.net [206.231.148.133]) by ime.net (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA24315; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 02:08:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <32098466.1FCD@ime.net> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 02:08:38 -0400 From: Gary Chrysler Reply-To: tcg@ime.net Organization: The Computer Guy X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Raynard CC: Don Yuniskis , questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: perhaps i am just stupid. References: <199608080028.AAA05336@jraynard.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk James Raynard wrote: > > > > So, Why waste time doing both.. a Dos based cksum compatiable with > > > FreeBSD's cksum's output as well as a kludge'y batch file! > > > It would be just as easy to whip up a dos based program that > > > read the *.sum files and compared them to the files on the fly! > > > > I would advocate *against* modifying the code for this. Put that > > functionality into a .BAT file wrapper. This allows someone > > already knowledgable in cksum(1) to modify the BAT file without > > having to learn some bogus *new* MyCksum program. > > I don't like the batch file idea at all. And assuming that users > will FTP down the files in alphabetical order (which I think you > mentioned in another post) is just asking for trouble. > One should bet they wouldn't. > > Also cuts down > > on the maintenance of yet another piece of software > > But we've already introduced more maintenance work - someone has > to generate these checksums every time a new release comes out. Actually that could be *partially* automated! > This program shouldn't need much maintenance - all it will need for > each release is a config file that tells it what distributions are > available and which files are in each one (in fact, I believe that's > what the *.inf files in 2.1.5 do). > Hmm, I'll have to grab a .inf and see what good it is. > > (and, is more > > in tune with the UNIX philosophy of building with existing tools). > > If we were talking about a Unix environment you would have my 101% > agreement. Unfortunately, DOS was designed on the philosophy that > a program has to do everything itself; the "shell" is practically > useless for anything more than launching applications. As for the > OS, well, why do so many DOS programmers talk directly to the > hardware? Gee, I wonder.. (Comming from a dos programmer) > > It hardly seems worth any "performance increase" to replace DOS's > > batch file interpretter with hardcoded system("cksum.exe") > > You don't have to call system() - just hack cksum's command-line > handling so it reads the names from a file instead and sorts them into > alphabetic order. Put #ifdef MSDOS/#endif around this if it makes you > happier :-) > > (BTW what's the max length of a DOS command line? The bin.* files > in 2.1.0 are 6 chars long, and there's 82 of them, plus a space > between each one - that's getting on for 600 chars by my reckoning). Dos's max commandline is 127 chars. PERIOD! > Once you've done that, then adding a couple of lines to read in > a number from a file and compare it to the number you first thought > of is trivial. > > I do understand why you want to do this in as Unix-like a way as > possible, but I don't think it's workable. Sorry. Agreed! Anyways the way I look at it Unix Guru's are not going to use it! I don't imagine I would, Maybe though. The purpose I see it for is new commers! And more then likly they are comming from Dos. -Enjoy Gary ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Improve America's Knowledge... Share yours The Borg... Where minds meet (207) 929-3848