🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1239@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> jxp@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Joe Petrolito) writes:
>
>I'd like to make some suggestions regarding Gnuchess. Some days ago I posted
>a request in gnu.chess for a executable version of Gnuchess 3.0 for DOS.
A lot of work has been done to improve the PC port of gnuchess lately so
it seems likely that when the PC version has been thoroly tested there will
be an exe version of gnuchess, but till then, have patience.

>The development of Gnuchess seems to be increasing at a rapid rate. We've gone
>from 1.55 (the version I have working on a Pyramid) in January to 3.0 in March!
>While this is a healthy sign of support, it is not always clear what the
>significance of the changes are. Here I'm thinking of hash tables, 'memset'
>options etc. It would be useful to have some detailed knowledge of these changes
>without having to read the source code. (In any case, I'm strictly a FORTRAN
>number-cruncher and don't know anything about C!) Incidently, version 3.0
>won't compile properly 'as-is' on the Pyramid, presumably because of the
>'memset' feature.
Yes, the documentation is lagging. There is an undocumented (yes you have
to look in the code) feature to turn of the use of memset. just add
CFLAGS= -DNOMEMSET to the makefile.

Hans Eric Sandstr|m			E-mail:	hes@log-sv.se
TeleLOGIC Sundsvall AB				...!uunet!sunic!log-sv!hes
Box 883					Tel:	+46 60 161098
S-851 24 Sundsvall, Sweden		Telefax:+46 60 122944

In article <1239@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> jxp@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Joe Petrolito) writes:
>
>I'd like to make some suggestions regarding Gnuchess. Some days ago I posted
>a request in gnu.chess for a executable version of Gnuchess 3.0 for DOS.
>(I'd don't have a C complier, though we are supposed to be getting one soon..)
>It seems to me that it would be useful to include this in the distribution
>of Gnuchess, since it would save time for those who wish to run it only on a
>PC. Compatibility is not a problem and the 'exe' file could perhaps be encoded
>to ascii.

The problem with this, in general, is that there are thousands of
OS/Architecture combinations out there, and that everyone would like
to have a compiled binary for their OS/Architecture combination in the
distribution.  For instance, I'd like to just get binarys for:

	Sun-3/SunOS 4.0.3/X11R4
	Sun-4c/SunOS 4.0.3/X11R3
	DECStation 3100/UWS v2.1
	VAX/Ultrix v3.0
	PC/AT 386/ICS UNIX 2.0.3

It's simply impractical for the maintainers to provide binaries for
everything.  That's the reason GNU doesn't distribute binaries.  This
doesn't prevent some individual out there making the binaries
available to others.

Larry M. Augustin			ERL 414
lma@sierra.stanford.edu			Computer Systems Lab
lma@dayton.stanford.edu			Stanford University
(415) 723-9285				Stanford, CA 94305

In article <1239@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> jxp@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Joe Petrolito) writes:
   ...[I]t would be useful to include [a(n) executable version of
   Gnuchess 3.0 for DOS] in the distribution of Gnuchess, since it
   would save time for those who wish to run it only on a PC.

Please don't include machine-specific binaries in the standard
distribution.  It would add transfer bulk and increase the load on the
authors and distribution-managers, who may not even have access to all
the various sorts of machines for which people would like binaries
included.  There's also the problem of potential Trojan horses.

If you don't possess the tools necessary to build the software from
the distribution sources, find a friend with the same type of machine
who does have the tools.  If there are enough poor souls in the same
unhappy position, they could collectively work to persuade a generous,
trustworthy benefactor with the tools to make their binaries available
for general access.  If you take this route, ensure that you have the
means to guarantee that the binaries you get (by whatever means) are
the ones put there by that trustworthy person, not tampered with by
some third party.  Personally, I wouldn't trust a binary distribution,
but you're welcome to expose yourself to whatever risk you like.

Anyhow, machine-specific binaries should not be part of the basic
distribution.

In article <BOB.90Apr2110156@volitans.MorningStar.Com>, bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
> In article <1239@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> jxp@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Joe Petrolito) writes:
>    ...[I]t would be useful to include [a(n) executable version of
>    Gnuchess 3.0 for DOS] in the distribution of Gnuchess, since it
>    would save time for those who wish to run it only on a PC.
> 
> Please don't include machine-specific binaries in the standard
> distribution.  It would add transfer bulk and increase the load on the
> authors and distribution-managers, who may not even have access to all
> the various sorts of machines for which people would like binaries
> included.  There's also the problem of potential Trojan horses.

I would personally vote for including an executable version for the PC as
a separate file.  Sounds like that would be a fair compromise.
Is there any way to put an executable gnuchess in the gnu directory 
on prep.ai.mit.edu?

        - Mark Glickman

> comments on why a PC executable should be made available

Let's be a bit realistic, eh?  The GNU people have enough to do without
building executables for software to run on platforms that they don't
support, such as PC's.  Now, how about someone else providing a PC
executable via anonymous ftp from somewhere, and also posting the binary to
comp.binaries.ibm.pc?

Before we volunteer someone else's time, let's see if we can get someone to
volunteer their own.  I have no interest in a PC executable, but I might be
able to be talked into providing a Microport V/AT binary.

Any takers on the PC front?
-- 
Thomas V. Frauenhofer	...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!swamps!!frau!tvf *or*
...!uunet!atexnet!kodak!swamps!frau!tvf (tvf@frau, tvf@cci632)
"What's a gourmand?  I'll tell you, he's a P-I-G pig!"
                                       - Justin Wilson

In article <35694@cci632.UUCP> tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) writes:
>Let's be a bit realistic, eh?  The GNU people have enough to do without
>building executables for software to run on platforms that they don't
>support, such as PC's.  Now, how about someone else providing a PC
>executable via anonymous ftp from somewhere, and also posting the binary to
>comp.binaries.ibm.pc?
>
>Any takers on the PC front?
>-- 
>Thomas V. Frauenhofer	...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!swamps!!frau!tvf *or*
>...!uunet!atexnet!kodak!swamps!frau!tvf (tvf@frau, tvf@cci632)
>"What's a gourmand?  I'll tell you, he's a P-I-G pig!"
>                                       - Justin Wilson

There are a few of us who are (slowly, but surely) working on a PC-able version
of GNUchess 3.0.  If we get it to a usable point, please be assured that we
will announce it here, and put it in all the usual ftp sites, as well as
sending it to c.b.i.p.

The lack of progress so far is mainly due to me being a grad student with
research to do (I haven't yet rigged a way to get grad-level credit for a 
PC port of GNUChess).  So, your choices are (1) wait for me or someone else
to finish it; (2) feel free to work on it yourself.  Extra hands on the
project would be appreciated--my time is quite limited right now.

Cheers, and happy hacking,
Scott Coulter
===============================================================================
Scott D. Coulter        Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: {most anywhere}!gatech!kong!scott         Internet: scott@kong.gatech.edu
"Sometimes I just sit back & close my eyes; I enjoy the view"--Michael W. Smith