Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Open Source on OpenVMS Conference Call

41 views
Skip to first unread message

BillPedersen

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 2:15:20 PM8/8/12
to
9 August 2012 OpenVMS Engineering Conference Call Agenda available for review and comment. http://bit.ly/JKASZn

Thanks,

Bill.

Stephen Hoffman

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 2:30:40 PM8/8/12
to
On 2012-08-08 18:15:20 +0000, BillPedersen said:

> 9 August 2012 OpenVMS Engineering Conference Call Agenda available for
> review and comment. http://bit.ly/JKASZn

The SET ROOT command was broken when last I tested it; circa ~V8.4.

It doesn't (didn't?) deal with the FIDs correctly when the value in the
FID NMX field was non-zero.

FWIW.


--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

Stephen Hoffman

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 2:35:43 PM8/8/12
to
On 2012-08-08 18:15:20 +0000, BillPedersen said:

> 9 August 2012 OpenVMS Engineering Conference Call Agenda available for
> review and comment. http://bit.ly/JKASZn

One option for continuing with PCSI is a so-called platform kit:
<http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/732final/5952/5952pro_004.html>

That'll make it easier to build (and patch) specific parts of the whole
kit without rebuilding the whole kit, and it'll also avoid filename
conflicts, except for those cases where a single package has duplicated
filenames. (And this being open source, there's a good chance that'll
arise somewhere.)

John E. Malmberg

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 7:26:39 PM8/8/12
to
On 8/8/2012 1:35 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2012-08-08 18:15:20 +0000, BillPedersen said:
>
>> 9 August 2012 OpenVMS Engineering Conference Call Agenda available for
>> review and comment. http://bit.ly/JKASZn
>
> One option for continuing with PCSI is a so-called platform kit:
> <http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/732final/5952/5952pro_004.html>

While I did not mention that specifically, that is exactly what I have
in mind.

> That'll make it easier to build (and patch) specific parts of the whole
> kit without rebuilding the whole kit, and it'll also avoid filename
> conflicts, except for those cases where a single package has duplicated
> filenames. (And this being open source, there's a good chance that'll
> arise somewhere.)

I have already seen it in at least one single package. That is how I
found out about it. I forget which one to give as an example.

Basically building a PCSI kit for an open source project is more of a
challenge than it should be. It should be possible to write a program
to that scans a staging directory and some simple input parameters and
then build the kits.

Regards,
-John
wb8...@qsl.network
Personal Opinion Only


Stephen Hoffman

unread,
Aug 8, 2012, 9:40:27 PM8/8/12
to
On 2012-08-08 23:26:39 +0000, John E. Malmberg said:

> Basically building a PCSI kit for an open source project is more of a
> challenge than it should be. It should be possible to write a program
> to that scans a staging directory and some simple input parameters and
> then build the kits.

That's been a longstanding complaint about the PCSI namespace; that
it's flat. DECset CMS has the same issue.
And yes, PCSI is more work and more of a tussle than it really should
be, even for a VMS-native package.
0 new messages