[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cksum.exe

From: Bob Proulx
Subject: Re: cksum.exe
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:25:30 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

address@hidden wrote:
> Hi, I'm a user of cksum.exe and am having a couple problems with it.  First,
> I've realized that if you perform a "chksum.exe *.*" in a directory to do
> all the files, it will not perform a checksum on files without extensions.
> Is there a way around that?

That actually depends upon your operating system and your shell.  On
unix systems the '.' does not seperate names from extensions.  There
is not even the concept of filename extensions.  So dot just means
dot.  On a unix system if you want to match all files you just say
'chksum *'.

On DOS based systems the '.' is special.  It separates the filename
from the extension.  Traditionally there you have to say *.* to match
all files.

Now the rhetorical question.  What is someone going to do when they
port a unix utility such as chksum to a dos based system?  Do they
require *.* or just *?  I have no idea since I don't use DOS based
systems.  But I can see the problem it poses.  It probably depends
upon the command shell.  But here is another problem.  On unix the
shell expands the '*' into matching filenames.  On DOS it does not.
Another system issue.

Since you are using chksum.exe I assume you are using the Cygwin

Regardless you should check there and look in their FAQ.  If you don't
find it plase ask on their mailing list.  That is where the experts on
DOS based system reside.  We probably can't help you over here.
Thanks for the report anyway and I am sorry I can only redirect you.

> Also, I ran cksum on a large number of files and for some reason
> there were random files, that do not seem special in any way, that
> chksum did not do anything with and thus did not give a CRC for.  I
> am using version 2.0.21 ... are there newer ones that address these
> problems?

Not a clue.  Sounds like an system porting difference in the same kind
as the above.  Please check in with the Cygwin folks!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]