VANCLEEF@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (10/11/89)
patches patches patches. why not just repost the source to nethack as it exists by the author. i am sure it would save everyone alot of aggravation. (just a thought) garrett
alex@dutirt2.tudelft.nl (Alexander Vonk) (10/11/89)
VANCLEEF@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: >patches patches patches. why not just repost the source to nethack >as it exists by the author. i am sure it would save everyone alot >of aggravation. >(just a thought) >garrett Well, Garett, I think that patches are very useful, because they: 1 Use up less net bandwidth (approx. 5-10% of original sources) 2 Can be distributed much faster than the original sources (size!) 3 Form a reliable form of source updates, which is however to some extent related to the experience and know-how of the people applying the patches. Personnally, I think Of-the-Wall software (patch and friends) form a major enhancement of the Usenet usability. And... I never had severe problems with patch; that's more than I can say about some `commercial' packages. +++ Alexander Vonk - Technical Univ. Delft, Netherlands +++ +++Phone: (NL) 015 - 78 64 12 (world) 31 15 78 64 12 +++ +++Mail: alex@dutirt2.tudelft.nl or alex@dutirt2.UUCP +++
larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) (10/12/89)
From article <5083@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, by VANCLEEF@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu: > patches patches patches. why not just repost the source to nethack > as it exists by the author. i am sure it would save everyone alot > of aggravation. > > (just a thought) Ok, so I post "The Grand Game" in 1 shell archive file of 50,000 bytes. Someone finds a bug and sends it to me. I put the fix in and its a good size fix, say 1000 bytes. Now, if I redistribute "The Grand Game" I will be reposting 49000 bytes of duplicate information. Thats alot of wasted communications going on to propagate information thats not needed. If I make a patch file with the fix and just distribute that, then all that goes out over the net and its precious bandwidth is that 1000 byte patch and some minor overhead. So in summary, patches make better use of the precious bandwidth of the Usenet network. Hope this helps...
VANCLEEF@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (10/13/89)
In article <4946@macom1.UUCP>, larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) writes: > From article <5083@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, by VANCLEEF@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu: >> patches patches patches. why not just repost the source to nethack >> as it exists by the author. i am sure it would save everyone alot >> of aggravation. >> >> (just a thought) > > Ok, so I post "The Grand Game" in 1 shell archive file of 50,000 > bytes. Someone finds a bug and sends it to me. I put the fix in > and its a good size fix, say 1000 bytes. Now, if I redistribute > "The Grand Game" I will be reposting 49000 bytes of duplicate > information. Thats alot of wasted communications going on to > propagate information thats not needed. > > If I make a patch file with the fix and just distribute that, then > all that goes out over the net and its precious bandwidth is that > 1000 byte patch and some minor overhead. > > So in summary, patches make better use of the precious bandwidth > of the Usenet network. > > Hope this helps... okay okay, i have gotten lots of 'hate mail' for this posting. i didn't really intend it this way. what i really meant is that (at least here) it is hard to keep up with all of the patched. i think that perhaps, maybe every couple of months or whatever the latest version of the code (full shar file?) be available so those of us who might be interested in trying out eventually have something to work with. i hope everyone understands what i mean this time. (btw, thanks for the response)
burzio@mmlai.UUCP (Anthony Burzio) (10/13/89)
In article <4946@macom1.UUCP>, larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) writes: > From article <5083@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, by VANCLEEF@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu: > > patches patches patches. why not just repost the source to nethack > > So in summary, patches make better use of the precious bandwidth > of the Usenet network. Agreed that reposts should not take place during the flurry of patches (1a-57zz :-), but after things settle down and no patches occur for a few weeks, can we have a repost? Perhaps a new version level for this? Could the archives be sent a patched copy so mere mortals can keep up and the net bandwidth is kept at a minimum? ********************************************************************* Tony Burzio * Holy linguine Batman! Martin Marietta Labs * - Robin mmlai!burzio@uunet.uu.net * *********************************************************************
briggs@tamunix (Sir Briggs) (07/05/90)
I have a simple question. In the past, I have always just ftp'd programs when I needed them. But with programs like NetHack, which are updated by means of patches, I am somewhat lost. I am using the IBM PC version. So how am I supposed to apply the patches when "patch" is a Unix utility? Either there is such a program available for IBM, or there is a way for me to apply the patches on this system (I am on a Unix at present). Any suggestions? Mark C. Lowe - KB5III
hartung@amos.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) (07/05/90)
You can get a decent PC port of the UNIX 'patch' utility from WSMR-SIMTEL20.army.mil (aka simtel20.arpa, [26.2.0.74]). It is in the PD1:<MSDOS.FILUTL> directory under the filename PATCH11.ARC. SIMTEL20 is accessable via ftp and mail server (VM.ECS.RPI.EDU). -- --Jeff Hartung-- Disclaimer: My opinions only, etc., etc., BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!... InterNet - hartung@amos.ucsd.edu UUCP - ucsd!amos.ucsd.edu!hartung BITNET - Hartung@UMass