Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 16:11:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com> To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, terry@cs.weber.edu, kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: new install(1) utility Message-ID: <199504042311.QAA04080@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199504042309.RAA07852@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Apr 4, 95 05:09:33 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Putting it in the install binary allows us to do this more effeciently. > Yes, we could put it in the .mk files, but install already knows the > sizes of both the original and the new files, so doing an update is > obvious if they don't match, and doing cksums on both files would be > much faster than the 'cmp' IMHO. Funny you should mention, I just ran some experiments (for CTM), and the fastest thing you can do is to mmap both files and memcmp them... I belive that these are worthwhile options to install, in particular since they make Makefiles easier to write correctly. -- Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@login.dknet.dk> -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504042311.QAA04080>