Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!ucbvax!UUNET.UU.NET!ziegast
From: ziegast@UUNET.UU.NET (Eric Ziegast)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mh
Subject: Re: MH version question
Message-ID: <9106101302.AA21850@rodan.UU.NET>
Date: 10 Jun 91 13:02:50 GMT
References: <1991Jun8.154531.26792@src.dec.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 24

Steve Jeske writes:
> 			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).
>       version: MH 6.7 #1[UCI] (jumbo) of Thu Nov 8 12:26:03 PST 1990
>       version: MH 6.7 #2[UCI] (jove) 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".)

They appear to be the same version (6.7), but the first one was compiled
at a later date.  The "#" indicates how many times the person compiled it
after getting the source from UCI.  I would suspect that these two versions
were compiled seperately.

Something which is important to you is that this version (and previous
versions) have a bug in the slocal file (">") action.  If you plan to
use this action, you ought to either get patch 1 and apply it, or get
MH-6.7.1 from UCI.
--
Eric W. Ziegast         Jr Postmaster - UUNET Technologies
ziegast@uunet.uu.net    postmaster@uunet.uu.net