Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 09:07:59 -0700 (MST) From: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com> To: tcg@ime.net Cc: dgy@rtd.com, fqueries@jraynard.demon.co.uk, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: perhaps i am just stupid. Message-ID: <199608071607.JAA03687@seagull.rtd.com> In-Reply-To: <3208BC55.124F@ime.net> from "Gary Chrysler" at Aug 7, 96 11:55:01 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It seems that Gary Chrysler said: > > There *must* be some major confusion between us! Yes, the major f*ckup was my assumption that the files were of the form bin.000, bin.001, bin.002, etc. (I use a split(1) that creates files named thusly instead of bin.aa, bin.ab, bin.ac, etc.) <:-) > > Argh! I had assumed there was a cksum.exe I'll look into booting > > DOS and compiling it... > > No there isn't .. Especially one that outputs the EXACT same output Yes, I realized this, too (belatedly). I was just getting ready to compile cksum under DOS... > that FreeBSD's cksum outputs.. They must AGREE 100% ie: The output > must be exactly the same else comp will fail! > > I probably already ported cksum. I'll have to go look! I borrowed > the crc code for a PtoP network file transfer package I wrote. :) > > Also Unix \n versus Dos's \r\n must be accounted for! > comp will fail over this! Yes, but if you use the same sources and *don't* use "text mode" for file access, all should be well... > > > 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. Also cuts down > > on the maintenance of yet another piece of software (and, is more > > in tune with the UNIX philosophy of building with existing tools). > > I'll buy that! > But, Um, We are talking about the Dos side! The unix side is > already doable! For both, The creation of checksum.sum for dos > systems, And for testing such files on a Unix system. Right. But you can still do things "The UNIX Way" (Tm. Reg.) even though you're running under DOS! :> > > > 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. > > I would hope that foo.xx exists since that is the file that is > to be checked sum'd against the checksum.sum created by FreeBSD.org > > cksum foo.xx > foo.tmp > > In plain english: > send cksum of foo.xx to file foo.tmp (Overwrite if exist) Yes, the problem was my assuming that the files to be checksummed were of the form foo.0?? (or foo.0* as a DOS-ism) > > > > > cksum %1.* > %1.tmp > > > Would cause the .tmp and .sum to be cksum'ed. > > > > > > cksum %1.0* > %1.tmp > > > Whats the ^.. for?? > > > > So the .tmp and .sum would NOT be cksum'ed! :> > > And how is this to stop that?? > foo.0* means any foo.0xx > Where xx means anything or nothing. *If* the files to be checksummed were of the *.[digit][digit][digit] form, (assuming the first digit was "0"), then %1.0* would NOT match the *.tmp, *.sum, etc. but *would* match each of the file names. Again, my screwup... Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa... (or, as my ex used to say: "My Coacoa, My Coacoa, Oh My Coacoa!") > > > > Briefly, this cksums all files in a given group (bin.*, sbin.*, etc.) > > This will cksum only bin.0*, sbin.0* not bin.* or sbin.*. > AFAIK those *.0* files don't exist, AFAIK they are named: > bin.aa > bin.ab > ... > > > > > *except* for the ".sum" file and the ".tmp" file of the same name > > > > (e.g., bin.sum and bin.tmp -- DOS creates bin.tmp to catch the output > > > > of the cksum command. But, if you said 'cksum %1.* > %1.tmp', DOS > > > > would pass %1.tmp to cksum, too! :-( Now, you have %1.tmp holding > > Who said anything about 'cksum %1.*' ?? > I didn't. I said 'cksum %1.??' There is a huge difference! > Of course this will cause a problem if the files ever go beyond > a 2 digit extension.. I don't see that happening. > Still have numeric values if zz is reached. > (I don't know what they are up to though) Yes, Yes, Yes. (Again, *.0* screwup) > > > > the computed checksums for all of the %1.0* files. Presumably, > > > > %1.sum (e.g., bin.sum) would already contain the checksums for these > > > > files -- because they were computed in the same way from the > > > > *originals* at freebsd.org. Then, 'comp' (roughly the equivalent > > > > of cmp(1)) just does a compare between the two files. > > > > > > I don't understand where you get the .0* from.. > > > > See above (Uh, d'uh....) :> > > Uh, d'uh What?? > > I still don't understand where you get the .0* from. > %1.0* would result in foo.0xx > where xx is anything or nothing! > > Like I said at the very begining of this message! > We must be on two totally different wavelengths. :) Yes. If you reread all of this with my original f*ckup in mind, it should all make (wrong) sense! <;-) --don
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608071607.JAA03687>