Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:11736 comp.sys.att:3926 comp.unix.questions:8613 comp.unix.wizards:10291
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!dcs!wnp
From: wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.att,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: dial() function call
Summary: There's a P.D. version, if someone wants to hack it for HDB compatibility
Message-ID: <161@dcs.UUCP>
Date: 6 Aug 88 12:51:06 GMT
References: <28@attibr.UUCP> <6213@chinet.chi.il.us>
Reply-To: wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: DCS, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 21

In article <6213@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
 >In article <28@attibr.UUCP> vch@attibr.UUCP (Vincent C. Hatem) writes:
 >>Has anyone out there ever got the dial(3C) function call to work???
 >>
 >>I've got a 3B2/600 running SysVr3.1.1 here, which comes with HDB uucp.
 >>
 >>This crazy dial() call uses the old style uucp files, which I've re-created.
 >>(Why be consistant???)
 >>
 >
 >Even if it did work it would also use the old-style uucp lock files
 >which would not be consistant with uucp and cu.  ...


There is a p.d. re-implementation of dial(3) in the comp.sources.unix
archives, which presumably could be hacked to support HDB-style support
and lock files (or has somebody already done this? Please speak up!). It
also provides more modem flexibility thru a "dialinfo" database.
-- 
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101
UUCP:     killer!dcs!wnp                 ESL: 62832882
DOMAIN:   wnp%dcs@killer.dallas.tx.us    TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD