Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:21:06 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH] add a SITE MD5 command to ftpd Message-ID: <20010314182106.A422@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20010314101440.A5965@dan.emsphone.com>; from dnelson@emsphone.com on Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:14:40AM -0600 References: <20010313211544.B17733@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <200103140459.VAA03061@usr05.primenet.com> <20010314084651.A23104@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010314012132.A91957@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010314112651.C23104@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010314101440.A5965@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:14:40AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Mar 14), Peter Pentchev said: > > Yes, this is only intended for fenner-like scripts, with the added > > benefit that a server-side MD5 checksum calculation would give > > individual port maintainers the ability to easily check their own > > ports often. > > Why not just use SIZE and MDTM, then? It serves the same purpose > (simply checking to see if the file has changed), and is already > implemented in most ftpds. Hmm.. because we do not record this in our port metadata? Actually, after a discussion with David O'Brien on IRC today, I'm having second thoughts about this feature. Maybe in a day or two, after I've slept on it, I'll change my mind about it :) G'luck, Peter -- This sentence claims to be an Epimenides paradox, but it is lying. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010314182106.A422>