jeske@src.dec.com (Steve Jeske) (06/09/91)
I am grovelling around our system, trying to find a pair of slocal/rcvdist
programs which do what I want (=work). The current version of MH is
unsupported here, so I am on my own, and no local wizard can help me. I've
never read comp.mail.mh before, I don't use the MH programs, but luckily for
me there was an unexpired posting of frequently asked questions, which helped
a lot. Previous incarnations of wizards have left behind two directories of
MH things, last year (other such directories date from previous years), each
of which has an slocal. My question is, how can I tell which one is "newer"
in terms of MH bugs having been fixed (file creation dates are no help). One
says:
%slocal -help |fgrep version
version: MH 6.7 #1[UCI] (jumbo) of Thu Nov 8 12:26:03 PST 1990
and the other says
%slocal -help |fgrep version
version: MH 6.7 #2[UCI] (jove.pa.dec.com) of Tue May 29 23:57:44 PDT 1990
The names in parentheses are different machines in our local campus, and I
suspect that the date is when some kind of MH Makefile was run. What I
wonder, specifically, is whether the "#1" versus "#2" is relevant? (Since #1
seems to work with the rcvdist in its directory, while the #2 pair doesn't
seem to. Both tests were run on "jumbo".)
Thanks. --Steve jeske@src.dec.com ...!decwrl!jeskeziegast@UUNET.UU.NET (Eric Ziegast) (06/10/91)
Steve Jeske writes: > My question is, how can I tell which one is "newer" > in terms of MH bugs having been fixed (file creation dates are no help). > version: MH 6.7 #1[UCI] (jumbo) of Thu Nov 8 12:26:03 PST 1990 > version: MH 6.7 #2[UCI] (jove) of Tue May 29 23:57:44 PDT 1990 > > The names in parentheses are different machines in our local campus, and I > suspect that the date is when some kind of MH Makefile was run. What I > wonder, specifically, is whether the "#1" versus "#2" is relevant? (Since #1 > seems to work with the rcvdist in its directory, while the #2 pair doesn't > seem to. Both tests were run on "jumbo".) They appear to be the same version (6.7), but the first one was compiled at a later date. The "#" indicates how many times the person compiled it after getting the source from UCI. I would suspect that these two versions were compiled seperately. Something which is important to you is that this version (and previous versions) have a bug in the slocal file (">") action. If you plan to use this action, you ought to either get patch 1 and apply it, or get MH-6.7.1 from UCI. -- Eric W. Ziegast Jr Postmaster - UUNET Technologies ziegast@uunet.uu.net postmaster@uunet.uu.net