Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 04:39:13 -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: <199608071139.EAA17578@seagull.rtd.com> In-Reply-To: <32087DBB.4C8D@ime.net> from "Gary Chrysler" at Aug 7, 96 07:27:55 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It seems that Gary Chrysler said:
[snip -- too much history here! :>]
> > > head quarters, Then someone (me if needed) could whip up a simple
> > > Dos & Unix based program to read it and verfiy each file.
> >
> > The 2 line .bat file I proposed above basically does it already.
> > I guess I would change it to:
> > cksum %1.0* > %1.tmp
> > comp %1.sum %1.tmp
>
> AFAIK there is no DOS based cksum program thats compatiable with
> FreeBSD's cksum output. So one would have to be written!
Argh! I had assumed there was a cksum.exe I'll look into booting
DOS and compiling it...
> 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).
It hardly seems worth any "performance increase" to replace DOS's
batch file interpretter with hardcoded system("cksum.exe")
> 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??
So the .tmp and .sum would NOT be cksum'ed! :>
> > Briefly, this cksums all files in a given group (bin.*, sbin.*, etc.)
> > *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
> > 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....) :>
--don
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608071139.EAA17578>