🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <59@estinc.UUCP> fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes:
<In article <88695@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes:
<> [stuff about patching Lattice 5.0 to get 5.02]
<>							    I spent
<>three hours last night attempting to apply the fixes, doing so very 
<>carefully so that I would know that the correct modules had been fixed 
<>and that the fixed versions replaced the old versions.

That's odd - I spent about that long; most of it was downloading
the patch files. Then again, I'd also been through the 5.01 patches,
so the documentation wasn't that important.

Did you use the "official" update sent in the mail? Or did you
download the patches? I wouldn't be surprised if the download patches
are missing the documentation, on the expectation that they go to an
"experienced" users. That doesn't excuse them from being missing,
though.

<One simple way to ensure that their customers got all the patches
<right would be for them to include a crc listing of all the files
<on a patched disk.  The "rls" and "crc" programs in my library
<solve exactly this problem.

The lattice patch program checksums the result, and lets you know if
you got it right. You then have to rename the patched.new file to
patched (after renaming patched to patched.old, one hopes). That the
libraries are patched in a different way, and some commmands were
replaced instead of patched doesn't help.

Since you have to have assigns pointing to the libraries, include
files and binaries, they ought to be able to distribute a cli script
that would patch everything for you. That should take care of all the
above problems.

BTW, LMK 1.04 (the 5.10 lmk) disagrees badly with LMK 1.05 (the 5.02)
lmk. They broke LMK badly enough that I'm going back to make.

	<mike
--
Il brilgue: les toves lubricilleux			Mike Meyer
Se gyrent en vrillant dans le guave,			mwm@berkeley.edu
Enmimes sont les gougebosqueux,				ucbvax!mwm
Et le momerade horsgrave.				mwm@ucbjade.BITNET