koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) (05/02/90)
Here are a few things that I should point out about SKsh 1.4:
1) The "view" command requires that the vmagic: assignment point to the
view.magic file itself, not simply to the directory that contains the
file. (Should I change this?)
2) The new "cp" command has several known bugs, the most significant of
which is that it will not overwrite existing destination files if more
than one source file is specified. I will be releasing a 1.4a
package which contains simply a fixed "cp" and a few other things.
"cp" works fine in most other circumstances where the destination files
don't yet exist.
3) The "+c" flag was somehow left out of the Reference.doc page on the
"options" command. I'll put it in next time; however, it is described
briefly in the Addendum1.3.doc file.
- steve
PS - I'd like to hear from anyone who has used SKsh with AmigaDos 2.0 -
are there any problems?kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (05/03/90)
In article <13920059@hpfelg.HP.COM>, koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes: > > Here are a few things that I should point out about SKsh 1.4: > > 1) The "view" command requires that the vmagic: assignment point to the > view.magic file itself, not simply to the directory that contains the > file. (Should I change this?) Haven't gotten around to checking out "view" yet, Steve ... :-) ... but it'd probably be a good idea to only require the assign to the dir. Reason being that with the assign to a *file*, it's locked (and therefore can't be edited). I suspect that folks who choose to use "view" will need to fiddle the "magic" a time or two to get it setup to their personal taste. > 2) The new "cp" command has several known bugs, the most significant of True, but at least you get error msgs out, so you know when it doesn't work correctly ... and no data gets lost. The *muchly* improved performance of "cp" is *greatly* appreciated, BTW!!! > PS - I'd like to hear from anyone who has used SKsh with AmigaDos 2.0 - > are there any problems? Which brings up any of several questions (that should really be in a seperate posting). What are some of the more "substantive" changes in 2.0's internals? For example, now that BCPL has been exorcized (to paraphrase Mr. Haynie), have things like the abominable restriction of able to only pass a cmd string of 255 chars or less to Exec() been eliminated? How about the task scheduling algorithms ... granularity been improved? Etc? Now that non-disclosure's off, we want ... *information* ... /kim /\#6/\ -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25
mfg@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Gordon) (05/03/90)
Can anyone tell me the correct size for SKsh 1.4? I've been using 1.3 for the past few months with no problems but when I try to use 1.4 I get rubbish from the command line editing and frequent gurus. The version I have is 70084 bytes long (just the executable, not the whole zoo archive) and sum (on a sun) gives 02576 69 I'm assuming it's a problem with my copy since other people on comp.sys.amiga seem to be using it quite happily. Thanks
kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim E. DeVaughn) (05/06/90)
In article <3778@castle.ed.ac.uk>, mfg@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Gordon) writes: > > The > version I have is 70084 bytes long (just the executable, not the whole zoo > archive) and sum (on a sun) gives 02576 69 That's the right size, and the same "sum" as I get (different number of blks from "sum" though on our SysV UTS machine). Though 1.4 requires less stack space than previous versions, perhaps your's is set *too* small? /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25