From: Greg.Naber@f34.n343.z1.fidonet.org (Greg Naber) Subject: Re: Please clear up the SLS version confusion Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 20:32:50 -0800
Hello there Daniel!
In a Ditty of <Wednesday February 10 1993>, Daniel Newcombe says to
All:
DN> It seems that v99pl2 got put up as SLS 1.0
I have posted this before, but here goes again, in the dos world, we are
limited to 8.3 characters for file names. Also, to facilitate the LD
calls to get the files, and confusion on the names of ALL the files
invloved, I have, since day one of SLS, placed the directory's inside a
zip wrapper. There has been a SLS2-A?.ZIP a SLS3-A?.ZIP, a SLS4-A?.ZIP,
and a few others (A? means A through X in this case, A1-A4 or 5 C1-C4
etc.).
In Dec. I heard Linus state many times that v1.0 would be out by the
first of January, so when peter came out with the Dec release (just
before the gzip craze), I made the file names SLSV1-A?.ZIP (etc.).
I assumed with an upgrade to the A1 & A2 series at the end of the year,
it would indeed be v1.0, Little did I know at that time that v1.0 would
NOT be released, and that Peter would then come out with a gzipped
version of the SLS series and that the naming convention would be shot
to *ell;)
Now you may see references to SLSV1AA1.ZIP (etc.). .... (at least this
way I can go all the way to Z, if Peter should release 26 versions of
SLS, before v1.0 is released;)
Although in all the readme's and in my files list, all this is
explained, it is obvious that people either do not read the readme's or
that someone may be deleting references to other BBS system's in the
files....
These are probably why people are refering to V1.0 when they mean V99.4
or 5.
Catch Ya Later!
Greg
... The telephone will ring when you are outside!
* Origin: Linux Net Hdqtrs - Internet: squally.halcyon.com (1:343/34)