syd@dsinc.UUCP (Syd Weinstein) (11/20/88)
In article <88@prapc2.UUCP> paulr@prapc2.UUCP (Paul Raulerson) writes:
:I had a very interesting experience with Elm version2.3 this week.
:I picked up the sources and compiled 'em up (Using Microport SysV/AT
:on a fast '286 with lots of memory...).
:
:The program compiled fine and seemed to behave quite well, except
:for one small thing. I kept getting segment violations that kicked
:the program out "leaving all temporary file intact!". :-)
:
:The seg vios happened whenever I tried to delete a message from the
:displayed list. Thy also happened whenever I punched for (U)ndelete,
:even though there was nothing to undelete. (I couldn't delete in the
:first place.)
:
:Anyway, I cured all this by the simple expeidient of placing
:-UXENIX
:in the command line string (undefined Xenix in other words). Not a
:single program fault in the 3 days since I did this, even with a lot
:of novice users using it.
:
:I deduce from this that maybe there are some places that have not been
:propoerly if-deffed for non-Xenix users. ;-)
Two comments. XENIX define is only for XENIX systems, not Microport and
definately not for 286's. It relates to other items such as file
placement.
Second, 2.3??? Before everyone asks, why 2.3, I'm still waiting for 2.1,
I know nothing of an Elm 2.3 (I presume its a typo) and I am in charge
of Elm.
Syd Weinstein, Elm Project Coordinator
--
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP
Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900
{allegra,bellcore,bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) (11/21/88)
In article <7@dsinc.UUCP> syd@dsinc.UUCP (Syd Weinstein) writes: >In article <88@prapc2.UUCP> paulr@prapc2.UUCP (Paul Raulerson) writes: >:[Elm barfed] Using Microport SysV/AT a fast '286 with lots of memory... >:[...] Anyway, I cured all this by [saying] -UXENIX >Two comments. XENIX define is only for XENIX systems, not Microport and >definately not for 286's. It relates to other items such as file >placement. Syd is absolutely right. "XENIX" should be defined only if the target system is XENIX. Makes sense... More specifically...Elm 2.1 was tested on SCO XENIX V2.2 on both 286 and 386 machines, and Configure knows about these systems, and will generate Makefile's which define XENIX. As far as I know, other flavors of XENIX are untested. As a side note...if you are running SCO XENIX and are planning to bring up Elm whenever it makes it out of the queue...get in touch with SCO and ask for the "crypt" disk. Elm assumes that you have crpyt(S) available, and your Makefile will be built with "-lcrypt". -- Chip Rosenthal chip@vector.UUCP | Choke me in the shallow water Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-5337 | before I get too deep.