🚀 go-pugleaf

> Boy, I sure thought we had the original distribution - I just
> re-unpacked them from the original shar files with Andries
> mail header at the top, but the new version sure bombed when
> I tried to install.  Things like:
> 1. our rumors file was at least 4 lines shorter than expected so the
>    'ed' didn't even work.
> 2. LOTS of files had lines inserted in the wrong place causing 
>    some interesting syntax errors.
> 
> I kind of had a feeling that a diff of this size over the net was
> going to have problems.
> 
> Has anyone had success making the changes?  We are running
> System V Release 2.
> 
> Steve Spearman  ihnp4!ihopb!spear

I thought I had the original too, when I applied the ed script 3 or
4 files didn't take, and of the ones that did, half of them wouldn't
compile.
-- 
Jon M. Allingham	(201)386-3466	AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH

"Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"

I had absolutely no problems installing 1.0.3 on a V7 system (with FLEXNAMES).
It took about 30 minutes.  All the source files compiled without problems
after some very minor editing changes to hack.tty.c and hack.ioctl.c. (Other
V7 systems are likely to have more difficulty.)  The edit script worked
perfectly on the original 1.0.2 source that I have.
-- 
Steve Davies {decvax!ucf-cs, ihnp4!pesnta, vax135!petsd}!peora!srd
Perkin-Elmer SDC/2486 Sand Lake Road/Orlando, Fl. 32809/   (305)850-1033

In article <703@ihopb.UUCP> spear@ihopb.UUCP (Steven Spearman) writes:
>Boy, I sure thought we had the original distribution - I just
>re-unpacked them from the original shar files with Andries
>mail header at the top, but the new version sure bombed when
>I tried to install.  Things like:
>1. our rumors file was at least 4 lines shorter than expected so the
>   'ed' didn't even work.
>2. LOTS of files had lines inserted in the wrong place causing 
>   some interesting syntax errors.
>
>I kind of had a feeling that a diff of this size over the net was
>going to have problems.
>
>Has anyone had success making the changes?  We are running
>System V Release 2.
>
>Steve Spearman  ihnp4!ihopb!spear


Hi:
	Yeah! I had absolutely no problem with the conversion from 1.0.2
to 1.0.3. After fetching the original 1.0.2 hack source I just ran the
update file through the shell and Voila' 1.0.3.

The machine that Hack is installed on is a Sun 2/170 running 4.2BSD



		Harry Reed
		{allegra, inhp4, hplabs}!sdcrdcf!doon

In article <703@ihopb.UUCP>, spear@ihopb.UUCP (Steven Spearman) writes:
> Has anyone had success making the changes?

I also went back to the original postings for 1.0.2, and I found that
the upgrade script worked just fine.  ( We are running 4.2 on a 780 and
Sun's 4.2 version 2.0 on several suns. )

The distressing thing for me is that, under 1.0.3, trying to engrave
with '-' causes a segmentation fault every time!  I think this is to
be considered a LARGE bug.  This may be our system, since we have only
been running 1.0.3 on the suns so far ( the vax saved games need to last
to the end of the month ).  Anyone else find the same thing?
-- 

				Vince Westin

		{ Live and learn ... Die and forget it all }

	{decwrl,dual,ihnp4}!{amdcad!cae780,sun!sunncal}!leadsv!vince

I somehow missed this update script, and I *thought* I'd been reading
all the important groups for it. If it did not get this far, somehow,
I'd really like to get a copy. If it's my own fault, I'll go UUCP it
from somewhere. If it just did not get here, it probably did not get
to other places and a repost (*gasp*) might be in order.

-David

-- 
David C. Kovar    
	    USNET:      {linus|decvax|cornell|astrovax}!dartvax!davidk%amber
	    ARPA:	davidk%amber%dartmouth@csnet-relay
	    CSNET:	davidk%amber@dartmouth

"I felt like a punk who'd gone out for a switchblade and come back
 with a tactical nuke.

 'Shit', I thought. 'Screwed again. What good's a tactical nuke in a
  street fight?'"
			"Burning Chrome" by William Gibson

When did hack 1.0.3 get sent out??????

signed,
perplexed

In article <873@clyde.UUCP> jona@clyde.UUCP (Jon Allingham) writes:
>I thought I had the original too, when I applied the ed script 3 or
>4 files didn't take, and of the ones that did, half of them wouldn't
>compile.
>-- 
>Jon M. Allingham	(201)386-3466	AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH
>
>"Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"

We had this problem as well.  It isn't due us hacking the sources around,
as I restored from our tape archive ('cos Andries said that one needed
the ORIGINAL 1.0.2).  The date string in date.h was "Mon Apr 1 1985".

Is it possible that Andries generated the diffs from a DIFFERENT original
1.0.2?  I think we should be told (:-)).

Has anyone with the 1 Apr version managed to update to 1.0.3?  If so, could
they send me (or post) a set of *CONTEXT* diffs?  Pretty please?  I got
some rabid hackers here who expect me to do our 1.0.2 -> 1.0.3 upgrade
with the edscripts we received over the net.  No way, Jose!

							Kay.
BTW, I think this shows how useful context diffs are....  Andries, are
you listening?



-- 
"In a world without rational structure, even the most bizarre events must
eventually take place."   -- Philip Avalon, "On the Resurrection of Reagan"
			
			... mcvax!ukc!warwick!flame!kay