bryce@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bryce Nesbitt) (10/26/90)
In article <2392@trlluna.trl.oz> aduncan@rhea.trl.oz (Allan Duncan) writes: >From article <>, by ambugs@cbmvax.commodore.com (Amiga Bug Maintenance): >> >> TITLE: ## Amiga 3000 Kickstart version 2.02 now available ## >> >Could those of us out the back of beyond have the version numbers >please? It helps to track whether we have got the latest or not (I've >seen a reference to 2.02 before, as 36.197/36.77, and have seen reference to >36.207/? as well). Here's the final, official, word. Release 2.02 is: Kickstart 36.207 Workbench 36.69 (Setpatch 36.4) Any version beyond the above is a preliminary testing release, and has not passed our Product Assurance procedures. The only Commodore supported 2.02 upgrade comes on the "A3000 Update Disk", available from your dealer. -- |\_/| . "ACK!, NAK!, EOT!, SOH!" "Lawyers: America's untapped export market." {X o} . Bryce Nesbitt, Operating Systems Group, Commodore-Amiga, Inc. (") BIX: bnesbitt U USENET: bryce@commodore.COM -or- uunet!cbmvax!bryce
smp@myamiga.UUCP (Steve Palm) (10/27/90)
In article <15395@cbmvax.commodore.com> bryce@cbmvax.commodore.com writes:
BN> Here's the final, official, word. Release 2.02 is:
BN>
BN> Kickstart 36.207
BN> Workbench 36.69
BN> (Setpatch 36.4)
Hey, no offense, but why do you still need a SetPatch utility? I thought it
was only there to fix bugs in the ROMS. If you are working with new and
improved KickStart ROM images, why would you still need to play around with
SetPatch files?
--
/// AMIGA: | Steve Palm, Sysop of FidoNet node 1:11/16
/// FOR THE | UUCP: {gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!myamiga!smp
\\\/// CREATIVE | INTERNET: [not yet available]
\XX/ MIND |_________________________________________________________ navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (10/29/90)
In article <82.2728F58D@myamiga.UUCP> smp@myamiga.UUCP (Steve Palm) writes: > > > BN> > BN> (Setpatch 36.4) > Hey, no offense, but why do you still need a SetPatch utility? I thought it >was only there to fix bugs in the ROMS. What's really a scary thought is what functions they patch... <apologies if any secrets are revealed, this was the version Cmdre sent me that they said was public...> My SetPatch reveals that they patch: Lock() Open(). I think I'm going to buy that tape drive backup RSN! :) David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me (and Calvin)
dzenc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dan Zenchelsky) (10/29/90)
In article <29301@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >In article <82.2728F58D@myamiga.UUCP> smp@myamiga.UUCP (Steve Palm) writes: >> >> >> BN> >> BN> (Setpatch 36.4) >> Hey, no offense, but why do you still need a SetPatch utility? I thought it >>was only there to fix bugs in the ROMS. > >What's really a scary thought is what functions they patch... ><apologies if any secrets are revealed, this was the version Cmdre sent me that > they said was public...> > > My SetPatch reveals that they patch: Lock() Open(). > >David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu Before anyone panics, there was some buggy software which counted on DOS returning values in D1 as well as D0 (a side effect of BCPL), and I believe these patches are merely a compatibility measure to keep the most programs possible running under 2.0 by continuing to do this. NOTE: This does not excuse these programs, nor does it mean YOU should do this!!! -Dan -- ___________________________________________________________________________ | _______ |________________________________________| | || |o| Dan Zenchelsky | | | ||____| | | Any sufficiently advanced bug is | | | ___ | dzenc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | indistinguishable from a feature. | | |_|___|_| |______________-- Rich Kulawiec__________| |__________________________________|________________________________________|
ewout@topcat.cbm.commodore.com (Ewout Walraven - CATS) (10/29/90)
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) writes: >In article <82.2728F58D@myamiga.UUCP> smp@myamiga.UUCP (Steve Palm) writes: >> >> >> BN> >> BN> (Setpatch 36.4) >> Hey, no offense, but why do you still need a SetPatch utility? I thought it >>was only there to fix bugs in the ROMS. >What's really a scary thought is what functions they patch... ><apologies if any secrets are revealed, this was the version Cmdre sent me that > they said was public...> > My SetPatch reveals that they patch: Lock() Open(). > I think I'm going to buy that tape drive backup RSN! :) Those patches are to keep programs which relied on side-effects of 1.3 happy and have nothing to do with the behaviour of the functions themselves, which is fine. Having setpatch standard in the startup-sequence makes it easier (for the user and Commodore) to implement little patches like these. >David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu >"Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me > (and Calvin)
smp@myamiga.UUCP (Steve Palm) (10/30/90)
In article <15444@cbmvax.commodore.com>, ewout@topcate.cbm.commodore.com writes: > Having setpatch standard in the startup-sequence makes it easier (for > the user and Commodore) to implement little patches like these. Does this mean that when you burn the release ROM's that there will already be a setpatch on the distribution disks, or that you will be make all the changes to date in ROM and then issuing SETPATCH versions as needed? -- /// AMIGA: | Steve Palm, Sysop of FidoNet node 1:11/16 /// FOR THE | UUCP: {gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!myamiga!smp \\\/// CREATIVE | INTERNET: [not yet available] \XX/ MIND |_________________________________________________________