Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!src.dec.com!jeske
From: jeske@src.dec.com (Steve Jeske)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mh
Subject: MH version question
Keywords: slocal
Message-ID: <1991Jun8.154531.26792@src.dec.com>
Date: 8 Jun 91 22:45:31 GMT
Sender: news@src.dec.com (News)
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center
Lines: 23
Originator: jeske@jumbo.pa.dec.com

I am grovelling around our system, trying to find a pair of slocal/rcvdist
programs which do what I want (=work).  The current version of MH is
unsupported here, so I am on my own, and no local wizard can help me.  I've
never read comp.mail.mh before, I don't use the MH programs, but luckily for
me there was an unexpired posting of frequently asked questions, which helped
a lot.  Previous incarnations of wizards have left behind two directories of
MH things, last year (other such directories date from previous years), each
of which has an slocal.  My question is, how can I tell which one is "newer"
in terms of MH bugs having been fixed (file creation dates are no help).  One
says:
      %slocal -help |fgrep version
      version: MH 6.7 #1[UCI] (jumbo) of Thu Nov 8 12:26:03 PST 1990
and the other says
      %slocal -help |fgrep version
      version: MH 6.7 #2[UCI] (jove.pa.dec.com) of Tue May 29 23:57:44 PDT 1990

The names in parentheses are different machines in our local campus, and I
suspect that the date is when some kind of MH Makefile was run.  What I
wonder, specifically, is whether the "#1" versus "#2" is relevant?  (Since #1
seems to work with the rcvdist in its directory, while the #2 pair doesn't
seem to.  Both tests were run on "jumbo".)

Thanks.		--Steve		jeske@src.dec.com	...!decwrl!jeske