peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (06/29/88)
I think that whoever is maintaining the Configure.sh file should be aware
that Xenix 3.5 at least, supports long (how long, I don't know: at least
10 character) identifiers. Thanks.
--
-- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva.
-- U Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
-- Phone: 713-274-5180. CI$: 70216,1076. ICBM: 29 37 N / 95 36 W.
-- UUCP: {uunet,academ!uhnix1,bellcore!tness1}!sugar!ficc!peter.mechsfm@ness386.UUCP (Shawn McDonald 512+377-6226) (06/30/88)
In article <996@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >I think that whoever is maintaining the Configure.sh file should be aware >that Xenix 3.5 at least, supports long (how long, I don't know: at least >10 character) identifiers. Thanks. >-- I second that. I have been unable to get elm 1.5 to compile on Xenix 386 2.2.3. I think that the official release of elm 2.0 should support the lastest release of Xenix. Just my $.02 worth. ---- Shawn McDonald {!bellcore,!killer}!tness7!ness386!mechsfm
edc@ALTOS.COM (Eric Christensen) (07/01/88)
In article <169@ness386.UUCP> mechsfm@ness386.UUCP (Shawn McDonald) writes: >In article <996@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>I think that whoever is maintaining the Configure.sh file should be aware >>that Xenix 3.5 at least, supports long (how long, I don't know: at least >>10 character) identifiers. Thanks. > >I second that. I have been unable to get elm 1.5 to compile on Xenix 386 >2.2.3. I think that the official release of elm 2.0 should support the >lastest release of Xenix. Agreed! Elm under Xenix has been a sore spot for a long time. I have full intentions of having Xenix, both 286 and 386, support incorperated into Elm in the next release. Chip Salzenberg did a set of patches to 1.7 that were posted to the net. He's volunteered to do the 2.0 version which I'll build into the release. In addition, several of you have volunteered to send in your local 286 and Xenix hacks. I'll wade through the whole mess (with the help of a few of the test sites) and come up with an Elm that is portable to these environments (alas, short a few features to make it fit, but....). -- +-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+ | Eric D. Christensen | Email: edc@altnet.altos.com (uunet!altnet!edc) | | Altos Computer Systems +--------------------------------------------------+ | 399 West Trimble Road | Note: There are no spelling errors in this | | San Jose, Ca. 95131 | message.... I just can't type! | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+ | These views aren't Altos' - They're mine, all mine, and you can't have them| +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (07/03/88)
In article <169@ness386.UUCP> mechsfm@ness386.UUCP (Shawn McDonald 512+377-6226) writes: >In article <996@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>I think that whoever is maintaining the Configure.sh file should be aware >>that Xenix 3.5 at least, supports long (how long, I don't know: at least >>10 character) identifiers. Thanks. >>-- >I second that. I have been unable to get elm 1.5 to compile on Xenix 386 >2.2.3. I think that the official release of elm 2.0 should support the >lastest release of Xenix. Try telling config you're a S5 VAX... it worked here, and we are using it daily (1.7b now, it was 1.5 originally). Outside of editing a few things to make the mail go in the proper place, it worked great right out of the wrapper. Pay no attention to the "Xenix? Oh barf gag" message from config, and tell the system you're a real computer :-) Now, if Configure was a little nicer about the "Xenix" response... or if whoever wrote Config was less biased (or bothered to check RECENT Xenix releases for compatibility)... -- Karl Denninger (ddsw1!karl) Data: (312) 566-8912, Voice: (312) 566-8910 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) (07/05/88)
[Cross-posted to comp.unix.xenix] According to karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger): >In article <169@ness386.UUCP> mechsfm@ness386.UUCP (Shawn McDonald 512+377-6226) writes: >>I think that the official release of elm 2.0 should support the >>lastest release of Xenix. > >Try telling config you're a S5 VAX... it worked here, and we are using it >daily (1.7b now, it was 1.5 originally). No, no, NO! You do _not_ have a working Elm! It is only a reasonable facsimile thereof. :-) When "real" Unix /bin/mail locks fred's mailbox, it does it by exclusive creation of "/usr/spool/mail/fred.lock". Under Xenix, however, fred's mailbox is locked by creation of "/tmp/fred.mlk". This can be discerned by running "strings /usr/lib/mail/mail.local" -- you'll find the string "/tmp/%.10s.mlk" which is a printf-style format for the lock file. Thus you are in *big trouble* if you are using stock Elm under Xenix and new mail arrives -- or even worse, if Xenix's mail.local and Elm's "fastmail" program both want to send mail to fred at the same time. Ouch! -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.uu.net> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. You make me wanna break the laws of time and space You make me wanna eat pork
peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/23/88)
Has there been any progress made in getting elm to work on Xenix? I'd like to make a suggestion... In Expert Mode, instead of providing a seperate screen to edit headers just (1) Put the headers in the guy's mail file for editing, and (2) read the headers out again afterwards and re-parse them. This works extremely well in vnews, and would allow a moderately large amount of code to be removed from elm. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" sugar.uu.net!ficc!peter.