jtc@tessera.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) (02/28/89)
System : SCO Xenix/286 2.2.1
Bug : PATH in uuxqt is hardcoded to /bin:/usr/bin
The system administrator of a site I "co-administer" news on, decided to
move all non-SCO packages to his /usr/local filesystem.
But when I installed news in its new home, uuxqt refused to execute rnews.
I tried two different L.cmds files:
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin
rnews
rmail
/usr/local/bin/rnews
rmail
When niether of the L.cmds setups worked, I took a string dump of uuxqt.
It looks as if PATH is hardcoded.
Although I got news running by copying rnews to /usr/bin/rnews, I would
like to know if SCO is planning a HDB UUCP upgrade for '286 machines?
--jtc
--
J.T. Conklin
...!{ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!tessera!jtcrosso@sco.COM (Ross Oliver) (03/11/89)
In article <1125@tessera.UUCP> jtc@tessera.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) writes: >System : SCO Xenix/286 2.2.1 >Bug : PATH in uuxqt is hardcoded to /bin:/usr/bin This was fixed in 2.3. HDB uuxqt now (correctly) allows full path names to be given for commands. I believe the default path, however, is still hardcoded to /bin and /usr/bin. >Although I got news running by copying rnews to /usr/bin/rnews, I would >like to know if SCO is planning a HDB UUCP upgrade for '286 machines? Yes, we are currently working on a Support Level Supplement to provide HDB UUCP for XENIX 286 users. We have it running internally on a couple of 286 machines. We should have a distribution built in a couple of weeks. Ross Oliver Techical Support The Santa Cruz Operation
jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (03/14/89)
In article <1885@viscous.sco.COM> uunet!sco!rosso (Ross Oliver) writes: } }Yes, we are currently working on a Support Level Supplement to }provide HDB UUCP for XENIX 286 users. We have it running internally }on a couple of 286 machines. We should have a distribution built }in a couple of weeks. } }Ross Oliver }Techical Support }The Santa Cruz Operation So when do you come out with a fix for the bugs in the 386 version?? JB -- Jonathan Bayer Beware: The light at the end of the Intelligent Software Products, Inc. tunnel may be an oncoming dragon 19 Virginia Ave. ...uunet!ispi!jbayer Rockville Centre, NY 11570 (516) 766-2867 jbayer@ispi.UUCP
tif@cpe.UUCP (03/14/89)
Written 10:40 am Mar 13, 1989 by ispi.UUCP!jbayer in cpe:comp.unix.xenix >In article <1885@viscous.sco.COM> uunet!sco!rosso (Ross Oliver) writes: >}Yes, we are currently working on a Support Level Supplement to >}provide HDB UUCP for XENIX 286 users. We have it running internally >}on a couple of 286 machines. We should have a distribution built >}in a couple of weeks. >} >}Ross Oliver >}Techical Support >}The Santa Cruz Operation >So when do you come out with a fix for the bugs in the 386 version?? I think that question could have been presented in a much more productive way. The paragraph above the one you included described a correction to the 386 version, thus they are not ignoring bugs. Such an inflammatory critique will only serve to remove SCO's presence from USENET. Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. {killer | texbell}!cpe!tif
jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (03/15/89)
In article <141100009@cpe> tif@cpe.UUCP writes: > >Written 10:40 am Mar 13, 1989 by ispi.UUCP!jbayer in cpe:comp.unix.xenix >>In article <1885@viscous.sco.COM> uunet!sco!rosso (Ross Oliver) writes: }>}Yes, we are currently working on a Support Level Supplement to }>}provide HDB UUCP for XENIX 286 users. We have it running internally }>}on a couple of 286 machines. We should have a distribution built }>}in a couple of weeks. }>} }>So when do you come out with a fix for the bugs in the 386 version?? } }I think that question could have been presented in a much more productive }way. The paragraph above the one you included described a correction to }the 386 version, thus they are not ignoring bugs. Such an inflammatory ^^^ Please retract your comments. The paragraph describes an update to HDB UUCP for the 286 version, and is not talking about the 386. JB -- Jonathan Bayer Beware: The light at the end of the Intelligent Software Products, Inc. tunnel may be an oncoming dragon 19 Virginia Ave. ...uunet!ispi!jbayer Rockville Centre, NY 11570 (516) 766-2867 jbayer@ispi.UUCP
tif@cpe.UUCP (03/17/89)
>Written 8:03 am Mar 15, 1989 by ispi.UUCP!jbayer in cpe:comp.unix.xenix >In article <141100009@cpe> tif@cpe.UUCP writes: >>Written 10:40 am Mar 13, 1989 by ispi.UUCP!jbayer in cpe:comp.unix.xenix >>>In article <1885@viscous.sco.COM> uunet!sco!rosso (Ross Oliver) writes: >}>}Yes, we are currently working on a Support Level Supplement to >}>}provide HDB UUCP for XENIX 286 users. [...] >}>So when do you come out with a fix for the bugs in the 386 version?? >}[...] The paragraph above the one you included described a correction to >}the 386 version, thus they are not ignoring bugs. [...] > ^^^ >Please retract your comments. The paragraph describes an update to HDB UUCP >for the 286 version, and is not talking about the 386. I guess I was not clear enough. "The paragraph above the one you included" is referring to this: Written 2:44 am Mar 11, 1989 by sco.UUCP!rosso in cpe:comp.unix.xenix >In article <1125@tessera.UUCP> jtc@tessera.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) writes: >>System : SCO Xenix/286 2.2.1 >>Bug : PATH in uuxqt is hardcoded to /bin:/usr/bin > >This was fixed in 2.3. HDB uuxqt now (correctly) allows full path names >to be given for commands. I believe the default path, however, is >still hardcoded to /bin and /usr/bin. Which demonstrates that SCO _is_ addressing bugs in the 386 version. Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. {killer | texbell}!cpe!tif
jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (03/18/89)
In article <141100011@cpe> tif@cpe.UUCP writes: > >>Written 8:03 am Mar 15, 1989 by ispi.UUCP!jbayer in cpe:comp.unix.xenix >>In article <141100009@cpe> tif@cpe.UUCP writes: >>>Written 10:40 am Mar 13, 1989 by ispi.UUCP!jbayer in cpe:comp.unix.xenix >>>>In article <1885@viscous.sco.COM> uunet!sco!rosso (Ross Oliver) writes: >>}>}Yes, we are currently working on a Support Level Supplement to >>}>}provide HDB UUCP for XENIX 286 users. [...] >>}>So when do you come out with a fix for the bugs in the 386 version?? >>}[...] The paragraph above the one you included described a correction to >>}the 386 version, thus they are not ignoring bugs. [...] >> ^^^ >>Please retract your comments. The paragraph describes an update to HDB UUCP >>for the 286 version, and is not talking about the 386. > >I guess I was not clear enough. "The paragraph above the one you included" >is referring to this: > >Written 2:44 am Mar 11, 1989 by sco.UUCP!rosso in cpe:comp.unix.xenix >>In article <1125@tessera.UUCP> jtc@tessera.UUCP (J.T. Conklin) writes: >>>System : SCO Xenix/286 2.2.1 >>>Bug : PATH in uuxqt is hardcoded to /bin:/usr/bin >> >>This was fixed in 2.3. HDB uuxqt now (correctly) allows full path names >>to be given for commands. I believe the default path, however, is >>still hardcoded to /bin and /usr/bin. > >Which demonstrates that SCO _is_ addressing bugs in the 386 version. > > Paul Chamberlain > Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. > {killer | texbell}!cpe!tif I have gotten a few e-mail replies to my original comment asking when SCO will fix the bugs in the current release. They all asked me to back up what I said, and scolded me for publishing an unwarrented remark. First, I apologise to those of you who were offended. Especially Ross Oliver, who has help me in the past. The comment was directed at SCO, and not Ross. Second, the problems that I have been bugging SCO about since November are listed below. These are not all the bugs, just the ones that I have listed in my database. When I called in November, I was told that a fix would be available within a "few" weeks. I called back in January, and was told that the fix would be within 2 weeks. In March I called again, and was told that the fixes/updates were being delayed due to the push to get the new user interfaces out for the Office Portfolio. I don't mind that the fix is a _little_ late, and I usually don't mind a protracted delay, especially since I do have a work-around. Unfortunately the work-around involves my editing files by hand. Try telling a customer who wants to change a uucp parameter that he has to do it by hand instead of using the supplied utilities. I do mind that I have been given several dates as to when the fix would be available, and have not been given any call backs or any other form of notification. If I had been told back in November that the fix would not come out until April, I would have bitched a bit, but I could have lived with it since they would have given me a real date instead of a fantasy date. I much prefer reality to fantasy. 1. system crashes during uuinstall, refering to /etc/ttys file 2. uusub doesn't exist. 3. uucico is hard-coded for HZ=20 instead of 50 4. security problem with uucp. /usr/spool/uucp is rw for everyone. lock files are put in /usr/spool/uucp. 5. the mkuser script makes the login directory in /usr/spool/uucp/????. the directory is removed by the uuclean script if there is nothing in it. I do not want to get into a flame war. I like SCO, and in general their support has been good. I will continue to defend SCO as I have in the past against unwarrented attacks, as Paul and others have done with my posting. JB -- Jonathan Bayer Beware: The light at the end of the Intelligent Software Products, Inc. tunnel may be an oncoming dragon 19 Virginia Ave. ...uunet!ispi!jbayer Rockville Centre, NY 11570 (516) 766-2867 jbayer@ispi.UUCP
rosso@sco.COM (Ross Oliver) (04/04/89)
In article <1885@viscous.sco.COM> I wrote: >Yes, we are currently working on a Support Level Supplement to >provide HDB UUCP for XENIX 286 users. We have it running internally >on a couple of 286 machines. We should have a distribution built >in a couple of weeks. I'm afraid I spoke too soon on this one. It was decided that since we would have to include all new documentation with HDB UUCP, we couldn't send it out alone. And since 2.3 for the 286 will be out Real Soon Now (it just finished beta), 286 users will be able to get HoneyDanBer by upgrading to 2.3. Ross Oliver Software Support The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.