Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!ho95e!wcs
From: wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Patching uucico to WINDOWS 7 on Microport 2.2
Message-ID: <1513@ho95e.ATT.COM>
Date: Tue, 30-Jun-87 18:54:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ho95e.1513
Posted: Tue Jun 30 18:54:17 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Jul-87 00:54:15 EDT
References: <122@ddsw1.UUCP> <1614@stb.UUCP>
Reply-To: wcs@ho95e.UUCP (46133-Bill.Stewart,2G218,x0705,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs 46133, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 25
Keywords: Microport uucico patch
Xref: mnetor news.admin:574 comp.unix.wizards:3052

The original article patched uucico by creating a DOS file,
rebooting in DOS, and using DEBUG to patch the file, then going back to UNIX.

In article <1614@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes:
>In article <122@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Question: Why use DOS at all, and not 'patch'? Well, although patch documents
>>that it can use a hard address, we've been unable to get it to accept this
>>form of the command. Since uucico (and everything else) is stripped, you
>>cannot use a symbolic address.... thus the need for this route.
>
>Better question: Why not use ADB? It can, quite nicely, patch executables
>(striped or unstripped), text files, inodes, superblocks, etc.

Does Microport come with adb?

While adb is good, when available, here's another technique:

uuencode the uucico file
patch the uuencoded version, either with "patch" or just "ed"
uudecode the file

Since I don't have Microport, I can't give you the correct patch;
any volunteers out there?
-- 
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs