From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Aug  7 09:25:30 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA13479
          for questions-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 09:25:30 -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 JAA13472
          for <questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 09:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kimiko.tcguy.net (buxton-8.ime.net [206.231.148.137]) by ime.net (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA04763; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 12:24:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3208C341.F10@ime.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 12:24:33 -0400
From: Gary Chrysler <tcg@ime.net>
Reply-To: tcg@ime.net
Organization: The Computer Guy
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Nordier <rnordier@iafrica.com>
CC: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com>, fqueries@jraynard.demon.co.uk,
        questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: perhaps i am just stupid.
References: <199608071416.QAA00355@eac.iafrica.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Robert Nordier wrote:
> 
> Don Yuniskis wrote:
> 
> > It seems that Gary Chrysler said:
> >
> [...]
> > >          cksum %1.?? > %1.tmp
> > >          comp %1.sum %1.tmp
> > >
> > > I belive this is what you meant. (That is if all the binarys have a
> > >  two digit extension)
> >
> > But, it will hose you if foo.xx exists, etc.
> >
> > >     cksum %1.* > %1.tmp
> > > Would cause the .tmp and .sum to be cksum'ed.
> > >
> > >     cksum %1.0* > %1.tmp
> > > Whats the    ^.. for??
> 
> A "cksum %1.0*" won't work because the files have alpha extensions:
> "bin.aa" to "bin.cq", if memory serves.

Yup, Thats a fact..

> 
> However there seems to be another underlying assumption: that MS-DOS
> expands wildcards in alpha-sorted sequence.  It doesn't.  File
> "bin.bz" (say) may just as well be processed before "bin.aa".  So
> a "comp" without an intervening "sort" won't work.
> 
> Another complication: DOS "sort" is little-used, broken, and may
> not be in the PATH.

I see no need for that ... ...  :)
I reley on sort as much as I reley on find. (ms-dos's)

-Enjoy
Gary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Improve America's Knowledge... Share yours
The Borg... Where minds meet
(207) 929-3848