From: jsteele@netcom.com (John Steele) Subject: Re: SLS xmkmf and 0.99pl4 top/w problem Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 22:28:56 GMT
In <1993Jan29.052659.25537@sol.UVic.CA> pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald) writes:
>In article <michaelw.728181095@mcshh.hanse.de> michaelw@mcshh.Hanse.DE (Michael Will) writes:
>>jsteele@netcom.com (John Steele) writes:
>>
>>>There may be a problem with the current version of SLS with xmkmf.
>>>Attempting to execute gives '/lib/cpp does not exist' and refuses to
>>>continue. There is no /lib/cpp, is this a version of gcc problem?
>>No, it is just, that you have to make a symlink to your cpp, which is
>>elswhere... SLS has got lot`s of these inconsistencies lately I am afraid...
>Lots? A new version of sysperms.tpz was put up 10 days ago that fixed
>this as well as a number of other problems, including the not mounting
>the procps fs problem below.
sysperms.tpz was put up 10 days ago? Then maybe you would be so kind
as to tell me where it is (as in which disk)? I am looking at the SLS
disks at tsx-11 as of today (12-29-92), and my SLS copy of them made
on the 17th.
Also, the README file in SLS/README was last updated on the 17th.
If there are known problems fixed, why hasn't this file been updated?
After seeing *many* posts about how proc isn't mounted, I think that it
would seriously help the signal/noise ratio in the group...
>I can understand people reporting problems a few days after their fixed,
>but if they insist on ignoring upgrades and additions weeks after the
>fact, ...
Well, since I'm one of the 'they' you mention above, I felt I should
be one to respond to this.
By my calendar Peter, the 20th was only 9 days ago, which is when I
re-downloaded SLS from tsx again, and looking through the last 2 weeks
of c.o.l and c.o.l.a of postings made by you, there is no mention of
sysperms.tpz except in this message.
>The big mistake they seem to make, is thinking SLS is a static package.
>So they download it one week, install it the next, and report the bugs
>the following week. In this scenario, week one is always the week
>that a major upgrade occurred :-) Murphys Law.
Except when they download it one night, install it that night, find
problems with it that night, find your email address (see below :),
let you know there is a problem, and never recieve a reply. Then
the same problem comes with the next one 7 days later...
>Nonetheless, I am seriously amazed at its usage. During the 99p4 upgrade
>I had to delete the a1 disk for 2 hours. I received no less than 7 mail
>messages telling me it was gone. And my email address is notoriously
>hard to find (read: missing from this header, and I like it that way :-).
I (as I'm sure many others) really appreciate the time and effort that
it takes to make the SLS work. Personally, I think there is some kind
of version control needed, especially with the a1-a4 disks, but your
experience may vary...
Thanks,
John
P.S. I would have sent you this as a mail reply, but since you don't seem
to want mail, I posted here.
-- #include <disclaimer.h> /* route all flames to /dev/null */ /**************************************************************************/ /* Systems Analyst | John Steele email: jsteele@netcom.com */ /* Video Business Systems | */ /* 1-800-255-3088 | Most people spell COBOLSUX incorrectly... */ /**************************************************************************/