[uw.mfcf.bugs] watcgl now has two versions of vi

idallen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (09/26/89)

From: "Ian! D. Allen [CGL]" <idallen>

The one under archware has problems:

    cgl% view -r
    /software/termcap/spool/vi/preserve: No such file or directory

And the one under /usr/ucb sure doesn't look like the stock BSD one.

D. Allen [CGL]) (09/26/89)

In article <11624@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, idallen@watcgl.waterloo.edu writes:
> From: "Ian! D. Allen [CGL]" <idallen>
> 
> The one under archware has problems:
> 
>     cgl% view -r
>     /software/termcap/spool/vi/preserve: No such file or directory

Besides, Unix systems are set up to use and clean /usr/preserve properly;
why do we need to move it for the MFCF bug fixes to vi?  I can understand
moving it if we had introduced an incompatible vi that didn't read the
same save file format; but, we haven't done that.
-- 
-IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) idallen@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca idallen@watcgl.waterloo.edu
 129.97.128.64    Computer Graphics Lab/University of Waterloo/Ontario/Canada

rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) (09/30/89)

> Besides, Unix systems are set up to use and clean /usr/preserve properly;

Unfortunately, that's not true.

> why do we need to move it for the MFCF bug fixes to vi?  I can understand
> moving it if we had introduced an incompatible vi that didn't read the
> same save file format; but, we haven't done that.

Some unix versions don't have a /usr/preserve (look at agsun).

Under our rules, I'm not allowed to create /usr/preserve on that machine.
And since I'd have to make up cron entries teaching it to clean this
different directory on this type of host, it is much simpler to 
make all hosts look the same.