🚀 go-pugleaf

molenda@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Jason "Hax R Us" Molenda) wrote:
}a)  as someone said before, there is no patch #7; it's a whole new archive
}    [of] files.

This is demonstrably false.  I am in possession of the illusive patch #7, which
brings the usenet-posted patchlevel 6 version (nn-6.3.6) into sync with the
ftp version (nn-6.3.7).  It has been posted multiple times here the access
information to an archive server that has the 230k patch.  When I requested
the patches, I didn't even attempt to let them auto-route to me, I sent them
the "Send-To:" command in the body of the request with the "best" route to get
back to me.

The confusion probably arose because Kim Storm decided to stop upgrading v6.3
over usenet (which was at version 6.3.5), but supplied an upgraded version of
nn for ftp (v6.3.7).  Unfortunately, a bug in nnmaster's handling of the from
line needed to be fixed, and a usenet patchlevel 6.3.6 was created that only
fixed this problem (the ftp version fixed this problem in v6.3.8).  The patch
set now known as "patch #7" actually turns usenet v6.3.6 into ftp v6.3.7, at
which time you should apply patches 8-10 to it to bring it up-to-date.  Ok?
Did I lose you?

The best solution is probably to take Kim up on his offer to supply usenet with
version 6.3.12 when he has debugged it a bit more.  I'd suggest posting the
sources to comp.sources.misc.  This makes sure that the source is automatically
archived (and thus prepares us for all the "where's version 6.3.12?" requests)
as well as avoiding the net complaints that would arise from having such a
large increase in bandwidth for a non-source group.
-- 
Wayne Davison          \  /| / /| \/ /| /(_)         davison@drivax.UUCP
                      (_)/ |/ /\| / / |/  \          ...!amdahl!drivax!davison