Re: mtree verification output format

2000-10-03 Thread Gerhard Sittig
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 23:53 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: I would like to change the outputformat of mtree(8) to be more systematic and machine-readable. [ ... ] Before: rc: size (13134, 13135) cksum (2005920215, 873112433)

Re: mtree verification output format

2000-10-03 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gerhard Sittig writes: I miss the continuation mark (backslashes at line ends). In case someone wrote parsers / formatters they should still be there. This way you don't change grammar but merely layout for better readability by humans. I don't change the

Re: mtree verification output format

2000-10-03 Thread Gerhard Sittig
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 15:21 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gerhard Sittig writes: I miss the continuation mark (backslashes at line ends). [...] I don't change the md5-grammar, only the output when it verifies a filesystem against a file (containing a spec

mtree verification output format

2000-10-02 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
I would like to change the outputformat of mtree(8) to be more systematic and machine-readable. The changes amount to: make "extra" and "missing" attributes in the output rather than prefixes which can be confused with filenames. Don't do the "run-in" of the first

mtree verification output format

2000-10-02 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:53:28 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: make "extra" and "missing" attributes in the output rather than prefixes which can be confused with filenames. Don't do the "run-in" of the first attribute with a short filename This looks

Re: mtree verification output format

2000-10-02 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Garrett Wollman write s: On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:53:28 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: make "extra" and "missing" attributes in the output rather than prefixes which can be confused with filenames. Don't do the "run-in" of the

Re: mtree verification output format

2000-10-02 Thread Greg Black
This is still very obscure; I'd like to see: size (was 1234, should be 5678) cksum (was 42424242, should be 69696969) ...so that it's clear what the meaning of the numbers is. In that case I think I would like to loose the ',' also. While you're at it, why

Re: mtree verification output format

2000-10-02 Thread Jon Parise
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 10:46:56AM +1000, Greg Black wrote: size (was 1234, should be 5678) cksum (was 42424242, should be 69696969) ...so that it's clear what the meaning of the numbers is. In that case I think I would like to loose the ',' also. While

Re: mtree verification output format

2000-10-02 Thread Mike Smith
This is still very obscure; I'd like to see: size (was 1234, should be 5678) cksum (was 42424242, should be 69696969) ...so that it's clear what the meaning of the numbers is. In that case I think I would like to loose the ',' also. While you're at it,

Re: mtree verification output format

2000-10-02 Thread Greg Black
This is still very obscure; I'd like to see: size (was 1234, should be 5678) cksum (was 42424242, should be 69696969) ...so that it's clear what the meaning of the numbers is. In that case I think I would like to loose the ',' also. While you're