🚀 go-pugleaf

>X-Envelope-to: MACRO32@WKUVX1.bitnet
>X-VMS-To: IN::"MACRO32@WKUVX1.BITNET"

1
14-OCT-1992 00:48:19.27
   1 00:00:00.00
15-OCT-1992 00:48:19.27
@UKCC.uky.edu:MacroMan@WKUVX1.BITNET
gutier@SEVAXU.CICA.ES

Received: from UKCC.uky.edu by ESEVVX.CICA.ES ; 11-OCT-1992 00:48:17.24
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 9437; Sat, 10 Oct 92 19:47:08 EDT
Received: from WKUVX1.BITNET by ukcc.uky.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2554;
 Sat, 10 Oct 92 19:47:07 EDT
Errors-To: MacroMan@WKUVX1.BITNET
X-ListName: "VMS Internals, MACRO, and BLISS Discussions"
    <MACRO32@WKUVX1.BITNET>
Received: from CUNYVM.BITNET (MAILER) by WKUVX1 (MX V3.1C) with BSMTP; Sat, 10
          Oct 1992 18:09:35 CDT
Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3959; Sat,
          10 Oct 92 16:27:58 EDT
Received: from MVB.SAIC.COM by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
          Sat, 10 Oct 92 16:27:56 EDT
Relay-Version: VMS News - V6.0-3 14/03/90 VAX/VMS V5.5; site arizona.edu
    darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!ads
erv .enet.dec.com!winalski
X-Newsgroups: vmsnet.internals,comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: VMS shareable images, what's wrong with them?
Message-ID: <1992Oct10.194031.14847@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>
From: <winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:40:31 GMT
Reply-To: MACRO32@WKUVX1.BITNET
Sender: <usenet@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>
References: <Bvo7FC.M01@ithaca.com> <1aubqgINNbhn@gap.caltech.edu>
            <ld5vdbINN763@news.bbn.com> <6372@npri6.npri.com>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH
Lines: 16
Xref: arizona.edu vmsnet.internals:1487 comp.os.vms:32857
To: MACRO32@WKUVX1.BITNET
X-Gateway-Source-Info: USENET


In article <6372@npri6.npri.com>,
murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy) writes:
|>
|>it's not even a religious issue --- there's nothing to discuss.
|>dec decided to implement shareable images in a certain way, and so they did,
|>and that's all there is to it.  i certainly wish they had done it differently,
|>but there's no chance of changing it now because it would be incompatible.

Not true.  The image header record has major and minor version IDs precisely
so that the image format can be changed in an upward-compatible fashion.  As
long as the Linker and image activator continued to recognize and process
old-format images correctly, in principle anything goes as far as the changes
that could be made in the new format.

--PSW