Fidonet Portal
From:
Oliver Thuns (2:280/464.47)
To: All
Date: Wed, 20.11.19 17:02
Squish on Linux (compile errors)
To: All
Date: Wed, 20.11.19 17:02
Squish on Linux (compile errors)
Hello!
Is anyone using Squish on Linux? The sources from github [1] don't build with
any recent gcc (I even trid gcc4.9). Compile errors an a ton of warnings.
[1] https://github.com/sdudley/maximus
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: * nigirO (2:280/464.47)
Is anyone using Squish on Linux? The sources from github [1] don't build with
any recent gcc (I even trid gcc4.9). Compile errors an a ton of warnings.
[1] https://github.com/sdudley/maximus
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: * nigirO (2:280/464.47)
From:
Alan Ianson (1:153/757)
To: All
Date: Wed, 20.11.19 08:52
RE: Squish on Linux (compile errors)
To: All
Date: Wed, 20.11.19 08:52
RE: Squish on Linux (compile errors)
OT> Is anyone using Squish on Linux? The sources from github [1] don't build
OT> with any recent gcc (I even trid gcc4.9). Compile errors an a ton of
OT> warnings.
Not since around 2004, maybe.
OT> [1] https://github.com/sdudley/maximus
I never knew it was on github but that's where everything seems to be
today. I used the 3.03 sources from sourceforge.net and the sources at
github look much the same.
Back then I think gcc was at version 2.95 or somewhere there abouts.
I didn't use squish a lot but it seemed to work the way it always did in
DOS and OS/2. I vaguely recall some visual glitches but functionality
seemed to be good, at that time.
Ttyl
,
Al
--- MagickaBBS v0.13alpha (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
OT> with any recent gcc (I even trid gcc4.9). Compile errors an a ton of
OT> warnings.
Not since around 2004, maybe.
OT> [1] https://github.com/sdudley/maximus
I never knew it was on github but that's where everything seems to be
today. I used the 3.03 sources from sourceforge.net and the sources at
github look much the same.
Back then I think gcc was at version 2.95 or somewhere there abouts.
I didn't use squish a lot but it seemed to work the way it always did in
DOS and OS/2. I vaguely recall some visual glitches but functionality
seemed to be good, at that time.
Ttyl
,Al
--- MagickaBBS v0.13alpha (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
From:
Wilfred van Velzen (2:280/464)
To: All
Date: Thu, 21.11.19 21:44
Re: Squish on Linux (compile errors)
To: All
Date: Thu, 21.11.19 21:44
Re: Squish on Linux (compile errors)
Hi Oliver,
On 2019-11-21 18:23:14, you wrote to Alan Ianson:
OT> There was problem with rescanned echoareas I received from my uplink.
OT> Because todays computers and drives are so much faster, all .pkt files
OT> had the same timestamp. Squish tries to toss .pkt files
OT> chronologically, but fails misserably in that case and tosses the .pkt
OT> files in random order.
There's also the problem that the squish message base stores date/time stamps
with a resolution of 2 seconds. That has been causing problems in the past
where a squish system forwarded messages to its other links with the date/times
changed from the original, and so causing undetected dupes on some systems.
This is of course only a problem if you have more than 1 link to an echomail
area. Which is never (or shouldn't) be the case for a point system. ;)
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
On 2019-11-21 18:23:14, you wrote to Alan Ianson:
OT> There was problem with rescanned echoareas I received from my uplink.
OT> Because todays computers and drives are so much faster, all .pkt files
OT> had the same timestamp. Squish tries to toss .pkt files
OT> chronologically, but fails misserably in that case and tosses the .pkt
OT> files in random order.
There's also the problem that the squish message base stores date/time stamps
with a resolution of 2 seconds. That has been causing problems in the past
where a squish system forwarded messages to its other links with the date/times
changed from the original, and so causing undetected dupes on some systems.
This is of course only a problem if you have more than 1 link to an echomail
area. Which is never (or shouldn't) be the case for a point system. ;)
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
From:
Wilfred van Velzen (2:280/464)
To: All
Date: Fri, 22.11.19 13:06
Re: Squish on Linux (compile errors)
To: All
Date: Fri, 22.11.19 13:06
Re: Squish on Linux (compile errors)
Hi Oliver,
On 2019-11-21 20:56:36, you wrote to me:
WV>> There's also the problem that the squish message base stores
WV>> date/time stamps with a resolution of 2 seconds. That has been
WV>> causing problems in the past where a squish system forwarded messages
WV>> to its other links with the date/times changed from the original, and
WV>> so causing undetected dupes on some systems.
OT> This might be a problem with some tossers, but it's not a problem with the
OT> Squish specification itself. It would surprise me, if Squish didn't use
the
OT> original date for rescanned messages.
OT> Quote from the Squish Developers Kit Version 2.00:
OT> __ftsc_date char[20] 218 FTS-0001 compatible date. Squish
OT> applications should not access this
OT> field directly. This field is used
OT> exclusively by tossers and scanners
OT> for preserving the original ASCII
OT> message date. Squish applications
OT> should use the binary dates in
OT> date_written and date_arrived to
OT> retrieve the message date.
Looks good (if it's used when forwarding mail).
OT> I suspect hpt from the husky project. In scanarea.c, function makeMsg:
OT> sc_time((union stamp_combo *) &(xmsg.date_written), (char
OT> *)msg->datetime)
I don't remember what tosser the guilty system used, when we found out...
WV>> This is of course only a problem if you have more than 1 link to an
WV>> echomail area. Which is never (or shouldn't) be the case for a point
WV>> system. ;)
OT> I'm a node in the othernet ;)
Are you a "leaf" node, or do you have multiple links?
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
On 2019-11-21 20:56:36, you wrote to me:
WV>> There's also the problem that the squish message base stores
WV>> date/time stamps with a resolution of 2 seconds. That has been
WV>> causing problems in the past where a squish system forwarded messages
WV>> to its other links with the date/times changed from the original, and
WV>> so causing undetected dupes on some systems.
OT> This might be a problem with some tossers, but it's not a problem with the
OT> Squish specification itself. It would surprise me, if Squish didn't use
the
OT> original date for rescanned messages.
OT> Quote from the Squish Developers Kit Version 2.00:
OT> __ftsc_date char[20] 218 FTS-0001 compatible date. Squish
OT> applications should not access this
OT> field directly. This field is used
OT> exclusively by tossers and scanners
OT> for preserving the original ASCII
OT> message date. Squish applications
OT> should use the binary dates in
OT> date_written and date_arrived to
OT> retrieve the message date.
Looks good (if it's used when forwarding mail).
OT> I suspect hpt from the husky project. In scanarea.c, function makeMsg:
OT> sc_time((union stamp_combo *) &(xmsg.date_written), (char
OT> *)msg->datetime)
I don't remember what tosser the guilty system used, when we found out...
WV>> This is of course only a problem if you have more than 1 link to an
WV>> echomail area. Which is never (or shouldn't) be the case for a point
WV>> system. ;)
OT> I'm a node in the othernet ;)
Are you a "leaf" node, or do you have multiple links?
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)