 |
|
|
|
|
| Added: Thu, Jun 22nd 2000 19:32 UTC (8 years, 1 month ago) |
Updated: Mon, Jun 23rd 2008 02:32 UTC (27 days ago) |
|
|
About:
cfv is a utility to both test and create .sfv
(Simple File Verify), .csv, .crc, .md5(sfv style),
md5sum, BSD md5, sha1sum, and .torrent checksum
verification files. It also includes test-only
support for .par and .par2 files. These files are
commonly used to ensure the correct retrieval or
storage of data.
Author:
Matthew Mueller [contact developer]
Homepage:
http://cfv.sourceforge.net/
Tar/GZ:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=23040
Changelog:
http://cfv.sourceforge.net/Changelog.html
Debian package:
http://packages.debian.org/cfv
CVS tree (cvsweb):
http://sourceforge.net/svn/?group_id=23040
Mailing list archive:
http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=23040
Mirror site:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~donut/programs/cfv.html
Trove categories:
[change]
Dependencies:
[change]
Python (required)
python-fchksum (optional)
[download links]
|
|
» Rating:
8.20/10.00
(Rank N/A)
» Vitality: 0.91% (Rank 418)
» Popularity: 2.68% (Rank 1750)
 
(click to enlarge graphs)
Record hits: 32,633
URL hits: 19,844
Subscribers: 51
|
|
Branches
Comments
[»]
Great Tool
by Stonki - Oct 29th 2003 06:01:41
By far the best checksum program I have seen so far. Lots
of options, therefore in the first moment a little bit hard to
use, but useful features...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Great Tool
by jjl - Aug 6th 2005 21:17:49
> By far the best checksum program I have
> seen so far. Lots
> of options, therefore in the first
> moment a little bit hard to
> use, but useful features...
>
>
Yep, I'll second that. It does pretty much everything I was looking for,
and seems to be by far the most comprehensive text-based tool of its kind.
I wish I'd discovered it sooner, instead of wrangling with the coreutils
md5sum.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Python?
by timecop - Apr 8th 2002 19:25:51
Hello, I remember seeing at least 3 other SFV-related projects on
sourceforge/freshmeat and none of them used python. What the hell, now
warez kiddies must install python to get their checksums done? And I just
wonder the performance of checksumming a 650mb iso with something written
in a VB-like interpreted language.
Let's pick the right language for the job, eh?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Python?
by Matthew Mueller - Apr 8th 2002 19:44:37
> Hello, I remember seeing at least 3
> other SFV-related projects on
> sourceforge/freshmeat and none of them
> used python. What the hell, now warez
> kiddies must install python to get
> their checksums done?
Python is already included on most/all distros.
> And I just wonder the performance of
> checksumming a 650mb iso with
> something written in a VB-like
> interpreted language.
If you had spent 5 seconds to check
instead of just "wondering" (aka
trolling), you would have found out that
the checksumming is done in C modules
that are called by cfv.
> Let's pick the right language for the
> job, eh?
Say, how many of those "at least 3
other" projects included support for
csv, md5, or par files? Zero? Maybe I
did pick the right language for the job,
eh?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Python?
by timecop - Apr 9th 2002 00:27:32
> Python is already included on most/all
> distros.
I've never seen python installed on any machines that *I* use.
> If you had spent 5 seconds to check
> instead of just "wondering"
> (aka trolling), you would have found out
> that the checksumming is done in C modules
> that are called by cfv.
Really? So reading byte by byte and calling CRC32 functions on that is
"not slower" than for example, mmap()'ing the file and running
CRC32 on the entire file? Oh, did I mention we are using Python here?
> Maybe I did pick the right language for the job, eh?
Python? Get real. Nobody used Python for anything other than random hacks
or things that nobody will ever want to maintain.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Python?
by Matthew Mueller - Apr 9th 2002 02:02:38
>
> % Python is already included on
> most/all
> % distros.
>
> I've never seen python installed on
> any machines that *I* use.
I'm not talking about whatever minimalistic stuff you have on your
machines, but the average install.
> Really? So reading byte by byte and
> calling CRC32 functions on that is
> "not slower" than for example,
> mmap()'ing the file and running CRC32 on
> the entire file? Oh, did I mention we
> are using Python here?
I know you love trolling timecop, but if you would just look, you would
see that in fact it does not read byte by byte.
It either: a) uses the fchksum C module to get crc for the entire file in
one call, b) mmaps the file and uses zlib C module to get crc of entire
file in one call, or c) if neither mmap or fchksum is available (maybe some
weird arch without mmap) it will read in 64K chunks and crc them. So yes,
it is in fact not slower _at all_.
> Python? Get real. Nobody used Python
> for anything other than random hacks or
> things that nobody will ever want to
> maintain.
And C is just _so_ much more maintainable.. riiiight.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Python?
by oblio - Apr 16th 2003 07:29:29
Timecop is definitely a troll, and Python is great for user
interface programs. I appreciate that you have made your
work available.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Python?
by Raven Morris - Nov 23rd 2005 20:16:32
timecop is a flaming idiot, 'nuff said.
Thanks for this app, will give it a try, it seems to do everything I am
wanting it to do.
--
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." -- Groucho Marx
[reply]
[top]
|
|
|
