Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!demon!news
From: pmoore@cix.compulink.co.uk (Paul Moore)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
Subject: More GhostScript Problems
Message-ID: <1991May18.154626.22804@demon.co.uk>
Date: 18 May 91 15:46:26 GMT
Sender: news@demon.co.uk (C-News Owner)
Reply-To: Paul Moore <pmoore@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk
Lines: 64

I have just downloaded patch 1 to GhostScript, and I am still having
problems with it. I set up the !GS application, and copied in the new
!RunImage. Then I tried to run the application. At first, I got nowhere,
until I remembered someone mentioning that the wimpslot on the !Run file
was too small (why wasn't this included in the patch?) Now, I am getting
an address exception at &7FE4 (obviously wrong, as application space
starts at &8000!) every time.

What is going on here? My machine is an A310, with 4M of RAM and an 80M
SCSI hard disk. My CLib is 3.66, but the same happens with 3.50. I have
FPE 2.80 and Colours 0.52.

I am getting very sick of problems with GhostScript. I have spent a lot
of time and money (in download costs) trying to get this to work.
Someone has previously mentioned that Alan, as moderator, should be
testing things to make sure they work before posting them. I
wholeheartedly agree. It should not be too difficult to set up an
Archimedes in a "basic" configuration (No special modules loaded,
CLib 3.50, other standard modules at "official" release levels, etc)
and try to run an application. Nothing major, just does it run, and does
it give reasonable results on any test files supplied (eg the PS directory
in !GS)

In addition, where sources are supplied, Alan should be testing that they
compile cleanly. Here, I would recommend that ONLY the tools in the
Acorn C (3.00) distribution be required. Ie, makes done by AMU, no use
of LibFile and ObjLib (ESPECIALLY not the non-standard versions required
in !GS, which support the -via keyword, and where ObjLib appears not to
be needed). Also, I would appreciate it if people would include an empty O
directory in the distribution. A minor point, but it irritates me when an
initial make fails "Can't create O.xxxx"! By the way, I would normally
expect a rebuild to be done by a simple "AMU", with no parameters, unless
it is explicitly stated otherwise in a !ReadMe file, and I would prefer
it if the makefile did not depend on OS variables, such as <C$RISC_OSLib>
in !GS.

While much of the above ought to be done by the original developer, in
theory, I am aware that it is a real pain to do, in practice. (I know MY
stuff never follows all of the above rules!) However, I'm afraid that I
DO think it's Alan's responsibility to enforce these (or some similar)
rules. That's what a moderator is for, after all. By the way, Alan, you
should *publish* the rules under which you wish postings to work, to make
your job easier!

By the way, I feel that ensuring EXECUTABLES run first time is absolutely
vital to the continued success of c.b.a, but I would not complain too
much if I needed to do a bit of work to get compiles working (eg Makefile
conversion, etc). But on the other hand, if I DO recompile, I expect the
rebuilt version to work!!! Here, !GS again fails, as I get "No stack for
trap handler" and similar messages...

I would be interested in people's thoughts on the above, particularly any
comments from Alan, on what HE sees the moderator's role as. I must admit,
though, that unless there is a definite change in the level of reliability
of c.b.a postings, I, personally, will probably stop bothering...

Gustav. (pmoore@cix.compulink.co.uk)