Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 01:53:03 -0400 From: Gary Chrysler <tcg@ime.net> To: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com> Cc: Robert Nordier <rnordier@iafrica.com>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: perhaps i am just stupid. Message-ID: <320980BF.7803@ime.net> References: <199608072021.NAA24951@seagull.rtd.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?320980BF.7803>