Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 07:27:55 -0400 From: Gary Chrysler <tcg@ime.net> To: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com> Cc: fqueries@jraynard.demon.co.uk, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: perhaps i am just stupid. Message-ID: <32087DBB.4C8D@ime.net> References: <199608061731.KAA26556@seagull.rtd.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Don Yuniskis wrote:
>
> It seems that Gary Chrysler said:
> >
> > Don Yuniskis wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Is there a nice "easy" way for folks to verify checksums, etc.
> > > > > of their files before installing? Can this be added to the FAQ
> > > >
> > > > cat bin.* | gzip -t - is nice and easy, but requires a fully
> > > > functioning Unix box...
> > >
> > > I was thinking of just 'cksum bin.*' since I would *assume* that
> > > the cksums, once correct, would indicate a "good" file...
> > >
> > > > Although I believe both these utilities have been ported to DOS.
> > > > Perhaps someone with the time and inclination could knock up a
> > > > batch file to do this? gzip.exe is already on the CDROM and I
> > > > don't see any reason why cat.exe couldn't be added.
> > >
> > > how about:
> > > cksum *.* > fudge
> > > comp fudge goodsums.lst
> > > but, of course, that would require the user to have *all* the
> > > files listed in "goodsums.lst" online. Also, you'd have to create
> > > an entry for goodsums.lst in the goodsums.lst file itself! And,
> > > since DOS will create fudge before completely expanding the *.*
> > > in the cksum command, you need to take it into consideration, also.
> >
> > I don't know anything about cksum(1).
> > (Welp, I didn't untill after starting this message. This is
> > version 2 :)
> >
> > But I just did a cksum(1) on a file.. Why can't that be directed
> > to a txt file per directory by the powers that be at FreeBSD
>
> First, I think the emphasis (at least *my* emphasis above) is
> to provide a tool to allow folks in DOSland to verify files
> have been properly downloaded. Once FBSD is up and running,
> tools for this already exist!
>
That was my emphasis as well. Doable from Dos..
But now another thing has come up, On the fly method! :)
I wasn't thinking about that either.. :(
> > 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!
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!
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)
cksum %1.* > %1.tmp
Would cause the .tmp and .sum to be cksum'ed.
cksum %1.0* > %1.tmp
Whats the ^.. for??
>
> (I *think* %1 is DOS's version of $1)
Yes, Correct.
>
> 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..
-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?32087DBB.4C8D>