Xref: utzoo comp.text:7668 comp.sources.bugs:2679
Path: utzoo!telly!eci386!ecicrl!clewis
From: clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: Psroff 2.0 FTP Access
Keywords: psroff ftp archive
Message-ID: <971@ecicrl.UUCP>
Date: 29 Nov 90 15:18:09 GMT
References: <962@ecicrl.UUCP> <1990Nov26.011738.17108@wrl.dec.com>
Reply-To: clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Followup-To: comp.text
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 22

In article <1990Nov26.011738.17108@wrl.dec.com> tp@decwrl.dec.com (t patterson) writes:
|slight correction:
|	on gatekeeper.dec.com, look in pub/text/roff.
|
|we have:
|	gatekeeper 64 #ls pub/text/roff/ps*
|	pub/text/roff/psroff-2.0-2.1-diffs
|	pub/text/roff/psroff-2.2-2.3-diffs
|	pub/text/roff/psroff-2.0.tar.Z
|	pub/text/roff/psroff-2.3-2.4-diffs
|	pub/text/roff/psroff-2.1-2.2-diffs
|	pub/text/roff/psroff-2.4-2.5-diffs

What a bizarre way of naming patches!  Why not psroff-2.0-p01 or something?
Then I don't have to list each file separately in my ftp notice.
And no, Psroff 2.0 patch level 1 is not 2.1.  My numbering scheme doesn't
work that way.  You'll have trouble when I come out with a real 2.1 release.
-- 
Chris Lewis, Phone: (613) 832-0541
UUCP: uunet!utai!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis
Moderator of the Ferret Mailing List (ferret-request@eci386)
Psroff mailing list (psroff-request@eci386)