On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Charles Lane wrote:
> You look in the symbol CHECKSUM$CHECKSUM. AFAIK, checksum has been
> part of VMS since 'way 'way back. But the problem is that we'd have
> to generate it on a Unix system...maybe if we could come up with a
> Perl module that duplicates checksum's functionality, but IIRC checksum
> is just using the old VAX "CRC" instruction (or emulated equivalent). But
> I think we have a way out, see below.
>
> CHECKSUM/IMAGE when applied to an EXE gives a nice section-by-section
> checksum output, BTW
It might be nice to have such a checksummer available to unix perl,
just as a few months ago someone heeded a unix passwd hasher on VMS.
> Putting an "epsilon" around the CDT doesn't help, because what we're
> trying to sense is if the distribution didn't have vms_yfix run. If
> the CDTs resulting from tar unpacking don't reflect the original
> creation times, then they don't tell us one way or the other.
>
> How about this: modify vms/vms_yfix.pl do the following:
>
> copy perly.c -> vms/perly_c.orig
> process perly.c -> vms/perly_c.vms
>
> Then have configure.com:
>
> compare CHECKSUM's of perly.c against vms/perl_c.vms
> if the same, okay we're done
I disagree. If they are the same then something is wrong since
perl_src:[000000]perly.c ought to be different from [.vms]perl_c.vms - no?
The adding of global declarations was the point of vms/vms_yfix.pl wasn't
it?
> ELSE
> compare CHECKSUM's of perly.c against vms/perly_c.orig
> if the same, we need to copy vms/perly_c.vms -> perly.c etc.
The copying of [.vms]perl_c.vms -> perly.c is ordinarily handled by
the Makefile (er, descrip.mms), and even the cleaning up of perly.c is
handled (to a very limited extent since the original unix perly.c gets
wiped out by a purge).
> ELSE
> complain bitterly
>
> So all that has to happen extra on the Unix side is a file copy,
> and we can use CHECKSUM from DCL to see if vms/perly_c.vms has been
> generated properly.
How about DIFERENCES?
> I'll see about working up a patch based on this; in the meanwhile, are
> you happy with the gen_shrfls patch?
Very happy and very grateful. I'd say cut the gen_shrfls loose from the
configure.com tweaking and send it in to Jarkko and p5p. Thank you.
Peter Prymmer
