mwolf@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Michael Wolf) (08/06/89)
I notice that there seem to be a fair number of patches for cnews. Is there an anonymous ftp site that is the designated archive site for cnews? I'd like to be able to keep up to date on any additions/bug fixes. Michael Wolf mwolf@Teknowledge.COM
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/08/89)
In article <28272@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> mwolf@Teknowledge.COM (Michael Wolf) writes: >I notice that there seem to be a fair number of patches for >cnews. Is there an anonymous ftp site that is the designated >archive site for cnews?... Well, I'm not sure 3 qualifies as "a fair number" -- unless you're counting unofficial patches from others -- but admittedly there is a need for making the patches available from archives. The full set of official patches to date has been sent to the comp.sources.unix archive sites, and should be available from them shortly. Future official patches will be sent there at the same time as they are posted. -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) (08/09/89)
In article <1989Aug7.195904.13429@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: =In article <28272@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> mwolf@Teknowledge.COM (Michael Wolf) writes: =>I notice that there seem to be a fair number of patches for =>cnews. Is there an anonymous ftp site that is the designated =>archive site for cnews?... = =Well, I'm not sure 3 qualifies as "a fair number" -- unless you're counting =unofficial patches from others -- but admittedly there is a need for making =the patches available from archives. The full set of official patches to =date has been sent to the comp.sources.unix archive sites, and should be =available from them shortly. Future official patches will be sent there =at the same time as they are posted. Which brings us back to the issue of patch numbering. If the patches for C News were numbered like every other piece of net.software, we would know that there were only 3 and we would know if we had missed any. I still don't understand what the problem with the conventional numbering is. It is not to late to change. Is this just a case of NIH? -- Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.com
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/09/89)
In article <1989Aug8.170802.20975@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) writes: >Which brings us back to the issue of patch numbering. If the patches for >C News were numbered like every other piece of net.software, we would >know that there were only 3 and we would know if we had missed any. Oh, nonsense. If they were numbered, you'd be asking what the latest number was. This way, if the patch is dated yesterday, you have pretty considerable confidence that you are current. And to find out whether you've missed any, you simply look at the list of prerequisite patches that is in *every* patch. (I agree this would get unwieldy if there were 57 of them, but there won't be.) >I still don't understand what the problem with the conventional numbering >is. It is not to late to change. Is this just a case of NIH? No, it's a case of NLH (Not Liked Here), plus an interest in finding out whether an alternative would work. I must say, if we'd anticipated that there would be this much mindless whining about it, we might have thought twice about the experiment... I would welcome *carefully thought out* comments on it, but please stop nattering about how it's not what you're used to and therefore it must be bad. I thought about this scheme at some length, and so far *nobody* has come up with an argument that I didn't think of in advance. I still feel that (a) the problems are nowhere near as serious as claimed, and (b) it works about as well when you think about it. Patch numbers make it easier to list all the patches that preceded a given one; that is their sole advantage. Patch dates tell you how current the latest patch is; that is their major advantage. In either case, the missing information can be had by referring to the text of the patch itself, if it's built properly (and ours are). We may change if it becomes clear that the date-based scheme is causing more problems than it solves. So far I see little evidence for this. Convincing us is going to require good arguments, not endless repetition of poor ones. -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ronald@ibmpcug.UUCP (Ronald Khoo) (08/12/89)
In article <1989Aug9.164003.20669@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Patch numbers make it easier to list all the patches >that preceded a given one; that is their sole advantage. Patch dates >tell you how current the latest patch is; that is their major advantage. How about a SVR4 type compromise? Name the patches by concatenating *both* the date and patch number? I do agree that the patchdate info is v. important. >In either case, the missing information can be had by referring to the >text of the patch itself, if it's built properly (and ours are). Can be a pain if one's access to archive sites is via tortuous routes. It *is* useful to be able to judge the completeness of the available kit from the archive's table of contents. While I'm here, does anyone in the UK have the 7/July patch? It didn't seem to get here... [ Yes, I know, I ought to *be* running C news - I'm working on it... call it 'Logistic problems' :-) ] -- Ronald.Khoo@ibmpcug.CO.UK (The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360, Harrow HA1 4LQ) Path: ...!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!ronald Phone: +44-1-863 1191 Fax: +44-1-863 6095 Small is beautiful, but small & broken is ugly--(Marty)Leisner.Henr@Xerox.COM
richard@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Richard Foulk) (08/15/89)
} >Which brings us back to the issue of patch numbering. If the patches for } >C News were numbered like every other piece of net.software, we would } >know that there were only 3 and we would know if we had missed any. } } Oh, nonsense. If they were numbered, you'd be asking what the latest } number was. This way, if the patch is dated yesterday, you have pretty } considerable confidence that you are current. And if they were numbered and dated then we'd have the best of everything.