Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:2672 comp.sys.att:6115
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!accuvax.nwu.edu!tank!shamash!sialis!rjg
From: rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Need advice/help on upgrading to 3.51
Message-ID: <1369@sialis.mn.org>
Date: 15 Apr 89 05:15:50 GMT
References: <518@flatline.UUCP>
Reply-To: rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin)
Followup-To: unix-pc.general
Organization: Dr. Ho Laboratory and Day Care Center
Lines: 39

So I posted instead... :-)

>Compatibility Caveats: I'm running a DOS-73, EIA/RAM (w/1.5Mb),
>  VDI_Libs, and a few other neato things.  Is the object code (and
>  associated libraries) portable from 3.0 -> 3.51?

To the best of my knowledge.  Does anyone claim differently?

>  And, I'm using the OBM (kinda have to).

I'm sorry.  :-)

>3.5 vs 3.51:  Is there a reason to take one over the other?  Is
>  the 'c' fixdisk really going to happen?

It's been eons since I ran 3.5, but I recall general giddyness when
upgrading to 3.51 (which I was supposed to get anyways).  Our
system(s) at work had 3.0, but we never installed them (can't tell you
why).  The 3.5/3.51 manuals appear to be much better than the 3.0
manuals.

The 'c' fixdisk is really Fixdisk 2.0.  Yes, it is forthcoming, no
it's not ready yet (And I understand why... :-)

>executables:  I have RM-Cobol (from AT&T), and am wondering if it will
>  work ok under 3.5+.  Same goes for Smart System, Franz Lisp and any
>  other executables you can think of.

I've seen all these things run under 3.51.  I can't imagine that
anything compiled under 3.0 would be binary-incompatible with 3.51.
You may get a better binary or better performance by recompiling, but
everything should still work.  (Does this hold true if it's using
shared libraries?)

-- 
       Robert J. Granvin           
   National Computer Systems     "Looks like the poor devil died in his sleep."
       rjg@sialis.mn.org         "What a terrible way to die."
{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!sialis!rjg