Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!agate!labrea!decwrl!vixie
From: vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Hey! That's not mine! (Re: R3: enhancement to contrib/demos/xcolors)
Message-ID: <28@gnome6.pa.dec.com>
Date: 1 Nov 88 01:41:40 GMT
References: <5279@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab
Lines: 37

In article <5279@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@uther.cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes:
# 
# The following changes will make xcolors work for all colors
# currently defined in the RGB database, whether duplicated or not.
# I'm sure other hacks could also be added....
[...]
# *** xcolors.manX.orig	Sun Oct 30 15:26:12 1988
# --- xcolors.manX	Sun Oct 30 15:25:03 1988
# ***************
# *** 12,20 ****
#   .TP RGBFILE
#   X11 color names and values.
#   .SH BUGS
# - It requires every color to be defined twice or more.  (It uses the
# - last definition since that is usually the capitalized name). 
# - .br
#   Dumps core if the server was started with different dbm databases.
#   .SH AUTHOR
#   Paul Vixie (vix@ubvax.ub.com)
# --- 12,17 ----

Just so nobody wonders if I can't spell, this version of "xcolors" is not
identical to the one I posted to comp.windows.x in April.  In particular,
I did not supply a man page.  I also did not submit it to R3/contrib.

I don't mind having the thing distributed, except that its an embarrassing
hack, but that's a chance I took when I posted it (the evil that we do
lives after us, etc).  I am somewhat miffed that it was modified without
any documentation of that fact -- "dbm databases" indeed.  Can we make it
a policy to at least add to the comments in the headers when we modify
software written by other people?

(R3 looks great, of course.  If the only blemish is something _I_ wrote...)

-- 
Paul Vixie
Work:    vixie@decwrl.dec.com    decwrl!vixie    +1 415 853 6600
Play:    paul@vixie.sf.ca.us     vixie!paul      +1 415 864 7013