cody@unixprt.UUCP (03/31/87)
I have been following the distributions and patches for both news 2.11
and Patch. Both have accumulated 5 or more lengthy patch files.
Considering the importance of both programs to the USENET community,
isn't time for a revised posting of both with all current, official
patches folded in.
A new clean base for distribution appears highly desirable.
P.S. Patch is up to patch level 8, News 2.11 is up to level 5. Also
there have been numerous patch postings for 2.11 that are not
`official'.rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (04/01/87)
In article <272@unixprt.UUCP> cody@unixprt.UUCP (Commando Cody) writes: >I have been following the distributions and patches for both news 2.11 >and Patch. Both have accumulated 5 or more lengthy patch files. >Considering the importance of both programs to the USENET community, >isn't time for a revised posting of both with all current, official >patches folded in. > >A new clean base for distribution appears highly desirable. I strongly disagree. Given the base distribution for news 2.11 and the patch files, and "patch" itself, it takes less than an hour to completely patch and regenerate news 2.11 on a Vax. I think it would be tremendous waste of Usenet resources to repost the entire 2.11 sources. Given the ease of generating a completely up-to-date news 2.11 from the original sources and the patches, what's the problem? Note that rn release 4.3 is at patchlevel 39, and I've had no trouble t'all getting it to that level by simply tracking Larry Wall's released patches. Internet sites are welcome to anonymous-ftp news, rn, nntp, and some other items from this machine (j.cc.purdue.edu); the versions available through ftp tend to track the revisions as they are locally applied. Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk PUCC News Administrator
amos@instable.UUCP (04/01/87)
Actually, you don't have to keep all the patch files; it's perfectly
ok to throw them away and only keep the latest .orig files as created
by 'patch'. There are sites that archive all sources and would be happy
to supply them in case of need.
--
Amos Shapir
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. (972)52-522261
amos%nsta@nsc.com {hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34.48'E 32.10'Npitaro@savax.UUCP (04/02/87)
> From: amos@instable.UUCP (Amos Shapir) > > Actually, you don't have to keep all the patch files; it's perfectly > ok to throw them away and only keep the latest .orig files as created > by 'patch'. There are sites that archive all sources and would be happy > to supply them in case of need. I'm amazed at all the responses like this that get posted. (Nothing personal Amos.) They usually are of the form "Yeah, <insert software name> is available. I have a copy but I don't want to distribute it." Almost always there is no detail on exactly where and how it was acquired so that the original requester can get ahold of it. The typical pointer is something like "There are sites that archive all the sources." Of course there is no mention of who they are, how to access them (by uucp), or even if you do find them whether they really will send you sources. Sometimes to save face the poster will say something like "I won't send <insert software name> through the net because it's too large." My beef is why bother the net with these types of postings at all. The requester's doesn't give a d*mn whether you have the software or not, only if you're willing to redistribute it or give a concrete pointer on where to get it. I've done my part in volunteering to redistribute MicroEmacs 3.8b through the US mail in the past and I got about 30 requests. I'm willing to spend 10 minutes a day out of "my" busy schedule to help someone else why aren't more net readers doing the same. The archives at simtel used to irritate me because I didn't have ARPA access but since they installed that request server which is accessible via uucp I've not minded seeing all the responses like "Oh yeah, that's available on simtel." as long as they give a directory and filename. Note that this is not to be considered a flame on Amos personally, it's just that I've seen too many of these postings lately. Especially with regards to patch, empire, <insert software name>, etc. Michael Pitaro USMail: Sanders Associates UUCP: decvax!savax!pitaro MER24-1583C PHONE: +1 (603) 885-9036 CS 2034 HOME: 46-D Hampshire Drive Nashua, NH 03063-2034 Nashua, NH 03063
pl@sibelius.UUCP (04/03/87)
In article <272@unixprt.UUCP> cody@unixprt.UUCP (Commando Cody) writes: >A new clean base for [news, patch] distribution appears highly desirable. I share this opinion: the news patches have been so lengthy and numerous, that it surely is better to have the patchlevel zeroed again. > there have been numerous patch postings for 2.11 that are not > `official'. This bothers me also and not only with news2.11: too often we see messages like 'My mailer doesn't like your mailer, so I'll send this to the news' popping around: what's wrong with the mailers out there ?? Even here (on the edge of the known net-verse: ever heard from a place called Finland ? {yes, we have computers here} :-)) we get really seldom our mailings back from other mailers, and I haven't yet heard a situation when also the second (well, let's say third) attempt (with some alterations in the path) had also failed. It's better to have the originators take care of the patches, even if it takes a bit longer. Then at least we have some kind of order here. And please, tell your system administrator next time you get failed mail and you think you really have found problem somewhere. -- Petri Launiainen, Intrinsic Oy, Aleksis Kiven katu 11 C, 33720 Tampere, Finland Phone: (int) 358 31 132800, USENET: pl@intrin.FI
stephen@dcl-cs.UUCP (04/05/87)
In article <272@unixprt.UUCP> cody@unixprt.UUCP (Commando Cody) writes: >P.S. Patch is up to patch level 8, News 2.11 is up to level 5. Actually, 2.11 is up to patch level 6, although the "History of USENET" articles still say it is up to patch level 3. Please do not call it 2.11.6 though, because it is not (according to the "version" control message). In article <3735@j.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP writes: >Note that rn release 4.3 is at patchlevel 39, and I've had no trouble t'all Actually, rn has been at patchlevel 40 for several months. If you are missing any patches, read the later patches to find out how to get them! In article <18@sibelius.intrin.FI> pl@sibelius.FI (Petri Launiainen) writes: >> there have been numerous patch postings for 2.11 that are not >> `official'. Actually, several of these came from me. When 2.11 was first issued, I sent an unofficial patch which I FOUND ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for 2.11 to be usable for me. I immediately gave it to Rick Adams for inclusion in patch #1. It never was included and, each time a patch for 2.11 was issued, I asked Rick Adams again to do something about it. It was only until patch #6 that it was sorted out. Now, clearly it is not my fault that I had to create unofficial patches since for our site, and several others, this patch was essential. Neither was it the fault of Rick Adams since he is not paid to work on 2.11. The only solution to this problem is to PAY those people that look after software for you. This is the only way to get any guarantee whatsoever! -- EMAIL: stephen@comp.lancs.ac.uk | Post: University of Lancaster, UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!stephen | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4120 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Project:Alvey ECLIPSE Distribution | LA1 4YR
geoff@desint.UUCP (04/05/87)
In article <527@savax.UUCP> pitaro@savax.UUCP (Michael Pitaro)
indicates an interest in learning usable information about how to
recover archived sources.
On a monthly basis (the last was March 7th), Rich Salz posts an article
to mod.sources that gives a complete index to the archives, plus information
on how to access them. This article is supposed to be posted with a long
expiration date, but the last wasn't, so it's probably not there on many
systems. For those of you who keep a lot of news, the relevant information
from the last posting, plus a correction to it:
Newsgroups: mod.sources
Subject: v09INF1: Introduction to mod.sources
Message-ID: <2127@mirror.TMC.COM>
Date: 6 Mar 87 21:13:12 GMT
Lines: 191
Newsgroups: mod.sources
Subject: v09INF3: Change in archive sites, recent errors
Message-ID: <2386@mirror.TMC.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 87 22:15:23 GMT
Lines: 68
I'm not going to quote my copy, because Rich is due to post an update any
day now. If you really want a copy before then, drop me a note and I'll
send you one.
--
Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoffamos@instable.UUCP (04/05/87)
In article <527@savax.UUCP> pitaro@savax.UUCP (Michael Pitaro) writes: >I'm amazed at all the responses like this that get posted. (Nothing >personal Amos.) They usually are of the form > > "Yeah, <insert software name> is available. I have a copy but > I don't want to distribute it." > >Almost always there is no detail on exactly where and how it was >acquired so that the original requester can get ahold of it. The next time you see such a message, why dont you just *mail* them a request for details? I have received and answered several such requests in the past; I have not included any details in my posting because the original poster apparently knew how to get the sources, he was only complaining about the volume of patches. Actually, the archiving sites should post a monthly table-of-contents and how-to-get articles; some moderated sources groups already do. -- Amos Shapir National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. (972)52-522261 amos%nsta@nsc.com {hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34.48'E 32.10'N
chris@nrcvax.UUCP (04/05/87)
pitaro@savax.UUCP (Michael Pitaro) says: >> From: amos@instable.UUCP (Amos Shapir) >> > "Yeah, <insert software name> is available. I have a copy but > I don't want to distribute it." > >Almost always there is no detail on exactly where and how it was >acquired so that the original requester can get ahold of it. The >typical pointer is something like > > "There are sites that archive all the sources." > >Of course there is no mention of who they are, how to access them >(by uucp), or even if you do find them whether they really will send >you sources. And then there are those that say: "Those sources are available via anonymous ftp at site X." Which is all well and good for those that are on the Internet. This has been my number one complaint about trying to get sources. I suppose I should be more specific about my situation by explaining that my site is NOT able to do anonymous ftp. I do appreciate that the ftp-ers are trying to help, it's just that it doesn't. -- Chris Grevstad {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!chris ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!chris ihnp4!nrcvax!chris Too many notes. There are just simply too many notes.
ken@rochester.UUCP (04/08/87)
|And then there are those that say: | | "Those sources are available via anonymous ftp at site X." | |Which is all well and good for those that are on the Internet. This has |been my number one complaint about trying to get sources. I suppose I |should be more specific about my situation by explaining that my site is |NOT able to do anonymous ftp. I do appreciate that the ftp-ers are trying |to help, it's just that it doesn't. If a site says that, perhaps it is exactly because they are not willing to pay the uucp phone bills to send it to you. And although it may not help you directly, you may find a friendly nearby Internet site that has snagged it via ftp who will uucp it to you and thus help you indirectly. In other words, don't feel discriminated against. These Internet sites are doing a little to help. Ken