Hi, I just realized that this is still open. Unfortunately in the meanwhile I lost the git checkout in which I worked on this, so I had to merge the changes from the borked patch I sent to the mailing list.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:36:53PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-coreutils@gnu.org/msg14650.html > >> > >> I was waiting for an updated patch, but > >> as far as I can see, that never reached the list. > > > > I think I did. I sent it in an own mail as outlined in one of your > > documents: > > > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2008-11/msg00107.html > > Ah, yes. Thanks. > Different thread. > > If it's no trouble, would you please rebase and re-post it to the > mailing list as an attachment or using a mail client that doesn't > mangle patches? At least two lines have been split, and that renders > the patch non-applicable. I could join them manually, but... The attached patch is rebased against the current master branch (last commit: bb4cb10e89607437154d84b47b9f93869a9484b7) Note, that my assignment is active, so it should be okay to include it, if you accept it from a technical pov. > Finally, in this block, please correct the inconsistent indentation: > > + if (pedantic & !do_check) > + { > + error (0, 0, > + _("the --pedantic option is meaningful only when verifying > checksums")); > + usage (EXIT_FAILURE); > + } I'm not exactly sure what you mean and weither I did it right in the new version of the patch. Indenting like it is done in coreutils is really weird with vim IMHO. But with cinoptions=>4,n-2,{2,^-2,:2,=2,g0,h2,p5,t0,+2,(0,u0,w1,m1 shiftwidth=2 tabstop=8 it at leasts looks right (as in: consistent with the other option checks) in vim. > Hmm.. re NEWS, maybe it's not worth it, since adding a new feature, > even one this small, in a bug-fix-only release (upcoming 7.2) is > not the best idea. Since it'll have to go into the to-be-created > section for 7.3. I have ommitted the NEWS entry for now. If it should get back, please clarify whats actually needd. And please remember that I asked you to write the test case, back when I wrote the patch originally. The test cases I've tested are still the same as in my mail as linked above. Best Regards, Patrick
>From f8867b9242be82745a5c3868b014498d4f0d65c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Patrick Schoenfeld <patrick.schoenf...@credativ.de> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:00:38 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] md5sum: Implemented --pedantic option * md5sum: Implemented a --pedantic option in --check mode, which lets md5sum bail out with a non-zero exit code, if one or more improperly formatted line is found. Feature request by Dan Jacobson. (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=353911) --- doc/coreutils.texi | 6 ++++++ src/md5sum.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/coreutils.texi b/doc/coreutils.texi index 3721bee..a047dff 100644 --- a/doc/coreutils.texi +++ b/doc/coreutils.texi @@ -3487,6 +3487,12 @@ checked file. Files that fail the verification are reported in the default one-line-per-file format. If there is any checksum mismatch, print a warning summarizing the failures to standard error. +...@itemx --pedantic +...@opindex --pedantic +...@cindex verifying MD5 checksums +When verifying checksums, fail if one or more improperly formatted MD5 checksum +line is found. + @itemx --status @opindex --status @cindex verifying MD5 checksums diff --git a/src/md5sum.c b/src/md5sum.c index b7db03e..7fc6def 100644 --- a/src/md5sum.c +++ b/src/md5sum.c @@ -121,12 +121,17 @@ static bool warn = false; /* With --check, suppress the "OK" printed for each verified file. */ static bool quiet = false; +/* With --check, exit with a non-zero return code, if any line is + * improperly formatted. */ +static bool pedantic; + /* For long options that have no equivalent short option, use a non-character as a pseudo short option, starting with CHAR_MAX + 1. */ enum { STATUS_OPTION = CHAR_MAX + 1, - QUIET_OPTION + QUIET_OPTION, + PEDANTIC_OPTION }; static struct option const long_options[] = @@ -137,6 +142,7 @@ static struct option const long_options[] = { "status", no_argument, NULL, STATUS_OPTION }, { "text", no_argument, NULL, 't' }, { "warn", no_argument, NULL, 'w' }, + { "pedantic", no_argument, NULL, PEDANTIC_OPTION }, { GETOPT_HELP_OPTION_DECL }, { GETOPT_VERSION_OPTION_DECL }, { NULL, 0, NULL, 0 } @@ -184,6 +190,8 @@ The following three options are useful only when verifying checksums:\n\ --quiet don't print OK for each successfully verified file\n\ --status don't output anything, status code shows success\n\ -w, --warn warn about improperly formatted checksum lines\n\ + --pedantic return a non-zero exit code if one or more improperly\n\ + formatted checksume line is found\n\ \n\ "), stdout); fputs (HELP_OPTION_DESCRIPTION, stdout); @@ -429,6 +437,7 @@ digest_check (const char *checkfile_name) { FILE *checkfile_stream; uintmax_t n_properly_formatted_lines = 0; + uintmax_t n_improperly_formatted_lines = 0; uintmax_t n_mismatched_checksums = 0; uintmax_t n_open_or_read_failures = 0; unsigned char bin_buffer_unaligned[DIGEST_BIN_BYTES + DIGEST_ALIGN]; @@ -494,6 +503,7 @@ digest_check (const char *checkfile_name) checkfile_name, line_number, DIGEST_TYPE_STRING); } + ++n_improperly_formatted_lines; } else { @@ -590,6 +600,16 @@ digest_check (const char *checkfile_name) n_mismatched_checksums, n_computed_checksums); } } + + if (n_improperly_formatted_lines != 0) + { + if (pedantic) + { + /* Bail out of if more then one improperly formatted line is found + * and pedantic option is set */ + exit (EXIT_FAILURE); + } + } } return (n_properly_formatted_lines != 0 @@ -648,6 +668,9 @@ main (int argc, char **argv) warn = false; quiet = true; break; + case PEDANTIC_OPTION: + pedantic = true; + break; case_GETOPT_HELP_CHAR; case_GETOPT_VERSION_CHAR (PROGRAM_NAME, AUTHORS); default: @@ -685,6 +708,13 @@ main (int argc, char **argv) usage (EXIT_FAILURE); } + if (pedantic && !do_check) + { + error(0, 0, + _("the --pedantic option is meaningful only when verifying checksums")); + usage (EXIT_FAILURE); + } + if (!O_BINARY && binary < 0) binary = 0; -- 1.6.5.4
