Re: Bug#353911: md5sum --check checks only if _all_ are bad

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

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/address@hidden/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

353911.patch
Description: Text Data