From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Aug  7 22:53:15 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA12275
          for questions-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 22:53:15 -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 WAA12265
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 22:53:13 -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 BAA23689; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 01:52:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <320980BF.7803@ime.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 01:53:03 -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: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com>
CC: Robert Nordier <rnordier@iafrica.com>, questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: perhaps i am just stupid.
References: <199608072021.NAA24951@seagull.rtd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Don Yuniskis wrote:
> 
> It seems that Robert Nordier said:
> > Gary Chrysler wrote:
> >
> 
> [stuff about DOS sucking eggs deleted since we're pretty much all
> in agreement]
> 

Agreed.. :)

> > However, unless some sorting takes place, the files may end up
> > being processed out of order.  This may not be a likely problem,
> > but it is a sufficiently possible one to need taking into account.
> 
> Yes.  I imagine the "safest" way (without writing a utility to
> do this) would be to use FOR to expand the command line
> argument (e.g., %1.??).  Then, for each file, use FIND (OhMiGod)
> to extract the pertinent line from a master CHECKSUMS file into
> a temp file.  Use CKSUM.EXE to compute a checksum into yet another
> temporary file and finally COMP to verify they agree.
> 

Ouch, I can see it now, Runnaway batch file eats system, Law suit
to follow!
for and find don't do wonders for each other, Yes, It can be done.
Saftly ??? I don't do it! I've had em run away on me!
I picked up a batch file called sweep from PCmagazine a few years
back.. It ate my drive because I had a SET DIR ... ... enviorment
variable that confused it.

> Sheesh!  Sounds like it would be easier to just write it all
> from scratch (bummer!) -- and people have the NERVE to call
> DOS an O.S.!

Oh, It's an OS, Just not an Advanced OS.. (To say the least :)
It does operate systems. (Well kinda :)

> > I actually had to do a DOS cksum-like clone, years ago, and for
> > compatibility it was necessary to sort the file args during the
> > globbing.  Unfortunately this is something ports from UNIX frequently
> > don't take into account.
> 
> The cksum.c in FBSD pretty much compiles out of the box -- have to
> drag in getopt() though...  I'd like to stick to using cksum as is
> simply because of all of the grief over the different versions of
> cksum over the years.  It seems like it would also be a good
> general purpose utility to have in DOSland for those folks that
> want to manually do a checksum and verify *by hand* against some
> published cksums.

I don't doub't that.

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