From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 4 22:23:57 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA03629 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 22:23:57 -0700 Received: from tfs.com (mailhub.tfs.com [140.145.250.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA03623 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 22:23:56 -0700 Received: by tfs.com (smail3.1.28.1) Message-Id: From: julian@tfs.com (Julian Elischer) Subject: Re: new install(1) utility To: phk@ref.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 22:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: nate@sneezy.sri.com, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, julian@tfs.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199504050432.VAA06504@ref.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Apr 4, 95 09:32:37 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1038 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > > Using cksum is *not* the way to go, we already have Pouls benchmarks > > > of cmp vs cksum on this, and cksum is not fail safe, it is possible > > > for 2 files to have the same checksum but contain different data, > > > very unlikely, but possible. > > > > I would have to see it to believe it. And, I don't remember any of > > Poul's benchmarks that you are speaking of just that he said his > > memmap/memcmp stuff for CTM was faster than cksums. > > > We have "install" in the vm-cache already, so exec'ing "cmp" will > always take longer, plus the logic in the shell to look at the exit- > code, plus people will invariably get it wrong in the Makefiles. better yet to have make decide to not run it at ALL.. :) > > QED: install is the place to do it, mmap+memcmp the way to do it. I think there is a need for both. julian > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. > 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' > => 'no rude people are relevant' >