rkl@anduin.cs.liverpool.ac.uk (09/18/90)
In article <201@raet-sh.UUCP>, richard@raet-sh.UUCP (Richard van Denzel) writes: > I recently upgraded from HP_UX 3.1 to HP_UX 7.0 (and from a 840 to a 832S) and > when I used ELM 2.3 PL6 the following errors occurred: > > [errors with lines in elmrc deleted] > Deleting the original .elm/elmrc file and then starting ELM again > generated the same errors. > Also recompiling ELM brought no solution. > > Has anyone out there got a clue to what the .... is going on? Please Help!!!! I suspect that this one is a doddle to fix. There are two possible explanations: 1. HP, in their infinite wisdom, now supplied a heavily modified version of Elm 2.0 and it is located, along with the newmail utility, in /usr/bin. At our site, we've renamed /usr/bin/elm and /usr/bin/newmail to be /usr/bin/elm.7.0 and /usr/bin/newmail.7.0 respectively. Hence, the PD release of Elm (and newmail) is picked up from the PATH rather than HP's. 2. Use "ksh Configure" rather than "sh Configure" when setting up Elm. It appears that /bin/sh in HP-UX 7.0 (and earlier ?) has some nasty bugs to do with the length of env. variables (amongst others no doubt). By the way, I wish Elm 2.3 PL6 would read the TERM environment variable and automatically decide whether the terminal supports HP soft function keys. Nobody can be bothered to type "elm -K" around here and we regularly use 300h (text mode of workstations), hp (plain text console) and hpterm (simulates an hp2622 inside X) - all of which should really display the soft functions keys by default. I've ended up surrounding the Elm binary with a shell script to check for the terminal type, but I'd rather it was coded into the binary. Richard K. Lloyd, *** This is a MicroVAX II running VAX/VMS V5.3-1 *** Computer Science Dept., * JANET : RKL@UK.AC.LIV.CS.AND or * Liverpool University, * RKL@000010500211.FTP.MAIL * Merseyside, England, * Internet : RKL%and.cs.liv.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu * Great Britain. *** Please note: New e-mail address ! ***