Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!daver!kcdev!genco!cpsolv!rhg
From: rhg@cpsolv.CPS.COM (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: shar 3.49 (part 1 of 2)
Keywords: shar
Message-ID: <543@cpsolv.CPS.COM>
Date: 16 Sep 90 04:00:24 GMT
References: <540@cpsolv.CPS.COM> <541@cpsolv.CPS.COM> <3911@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas, USA
Lines: 43

In article <3911@ecs.soton.ac.uk> tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) writes:
>In <541@cpsolv.CPS.COM> rhg@cpsolv.CPS.COM (Richard H. Gumpertz) writes:
>
>>Submitted-by: rhg@cpsolv
>>Archive-name: shar3.49/part01
>
>>Patch 3 to shar 3.43 was relative to the wrong version of Makefile.  Rather
>>than try to patch a patch and all that, here is the whole thing.
>
>Is a static version of shar near?  I'm greatful for any bug-fixes
>and enhancements, but patches seem to be rather prolific at present!!

I try to release patches for BUGS on a fast turnaround basis.  Otherwise,
MANY people may trip over a problem with an already known fix.  Enhancements
go out only after a "while" (or piggybacked with the next urgent bug fix if
that happens to come first).

The beta testers let me down and did not sufficiently test the preleases of
shar 3.43.  Most notable was the dirent stuff; it wouldn't compile on
BSD-like systems and so the need to make some quick fixes in that area.  I
then accidentally blew patch 3 by comparing against the wrong previous
version of Makefile and so, as I said (and is quoted above), I decided the
cleanest recovery would be a complete rerelease.

Any further discussion of the subject will just waste more bandwidth than the
original postings.  You have my apologies.

There have been no bug reports since 3.49 except for "isgraph(x)" not being
available on vanilla BSD.  The fix for this seems so trivial and obvious
(using isprint(x) & !isspace(x)) that I have decided to let release of my
"official" patch wait as non-urgent.

Actually, there is one other open issue: does SCO XENIX/UNIX 386 want
"-DNO_DIRENT -DCLOSEDIR_VOID" to be included in CFLAGS (in Makefile) or not?
That is, does it have a BSD-like <sys/dir.h> or does it want <dirent.h>?  I
have had both ways asserted to me as "correct".  Darned if I know (or even
really care at this point) which is correct.  Edit whatever you want into
Makefile.  If you have a DEFINITIVE answer, let me know what it is.
-- 
  ==========================================================================
  | Richard H. Gumpertz    rhg@CPS.COM    (913) 642-1777 or (816) 891-3561 |
  | Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749 |
  ==========================================================================