cjosta@tasu77.UUCP (Jonathan Sweedler) (06/29/89)
I applied mush patch #5 and found that hunks 9, 10 and 15 failed on the
man page (mush.1). I was going to apply the patches by hand, but I
really couldn't find any text that was at all similar. Anybody else
have this problem? I think I'm up to date on all the patches and I've
never had any failed hunks before. If its just my problem, can someone
just send me a copy of mush.1? Thanks.
Also, concerning the 'patch' to the patch. Is this going to be included
in a future 'official' patch, or should we just do it by hand?
Jonathan Sweedler === National Semiconductor Israel
UUCP: ...!{amdahl,hplabs,decwrl}!nsc!taux01!cjosta
Domain: cjosta@taux01.nsc.comschaefer@ogccse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) (07/01/89)
Well, I wondered how long this flood would take to appear. Fortunately (?) this first is not something I did wrong: In article <2035@taux01.UUCP> cjosta@tasu77.UUCP (Jonathan Sweedler) writes: } I applied mush patch #5 and found that hunks 9, 10 and 15 failed on the } man page (mush.1). I was going to apply the patches by hand, but I } really couldn't find any text that was at all similar. Anybody else } have this problem? I think I'm up to date on all the patches and I've } never had any failed hunks before. If its just my problem, can someone } just send me a copy of mush.1? Thanks. Just in case anyone wonders, I've been maintaining a version built entirely by applying the patches ever since the 3-12-89 release of 6.4 (that's the comp.sources.unix posting). I apply every patch to that version before I send it out to make sure there are no rejects, and it is that version (after patching) that gets ftp'd to ucbvax as the latest mush-6.5.tar.Z. I also save a copy one patchlevel back so I can double-check reports like this one, which I just did, and I got no failures. I'll send a copy of mush.1 to Mr. Sweedler as soon as our e-mail is working reliably again. :-( } Also, concerning the 'patch' to the patch. Is this going to be included } in a future 'official' patch, or should we just do it by hand? It will be included in the next patch, which I will post today (probably in just a few minutes). In article <116@borabora.omni.com> bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) writes: } IN mush 6.5 patched patchlevel 5 } IF you don't have a ~/.mushuser } AND you use the default Mushrc } THEN you get a segmentation fault when mush attempts to print the } prompt in the line in Mushrc which reads: echo -p "\n${prompt}expert\n" Yes, there are two bugs there: first, "echo -p" shouldn't be so stupid as to work before there is a mailfile; and second, I shouldn't have been so stupid as to use echo -p in Mushrc. Both are fixed in the patch going out today. -- Bart Schaefer "And if you believe that, you'll believe anything." -- DangerMouse CSNET / Internet schaefer@cse.ogc.edu UUCP ...{sequent,tektronix,verdix}!ogccse!schaefer