Re: bin/54726: cksum(1) doesn't inform you of passed checks

[Edgar Pettijohn <edgar%pettijohn-web.com@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/54726; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Edgar Pettijohn <edgar%pettijohn-web.com@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/54726: cksum(1) doesn't inform you of passed checks
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 09:23:07 -0600

 On 2019-12-01 05:55, Michael van Elst wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR bin/54726; it has been noted by GNATS.
 >
 > From: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst)
 > To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Cc:
 > Subject: Re: bin/54726: cksum(1) doesn't inform you of passed checks
 > Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 11:53:18 -0000 (UTC)
 >
 >   edgar%pettijohn-web.com@localhost writes:
 >   
 >   >localhost$ cat MD5 | /usr/bin/cksum -c
 >   >localhost$
 >   
 >   >This struck me as odd. So after reading the manual it would appear the only way to know that the files were ok is to:
 >   >localhost$ echo $?
 >   >0
 >   
 >   
 >   That is how all UNIX tools traditionally behave. The commands are used in
 >   scripts and the check result is used to control the proram flow. E.g. compare
 >   to 'gzip -t' where you can add the '-v' verbose flag to get human readable
 >   text.
 >   
 >   --
 >   --
 >                                   Michael van Elst
 >   Internet: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost
 >                                   "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
 >   
 
 Then why does it give you human readable text for failed files? Seems 
 like it should either do both or neither. If neither add a -v flag to 
 get both.
 
 Edgar