Re: MiNT goes UNiX, UUCP, standardizing...

[Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.north.de>]

Chris Herborth writes:
> What you wrote:
> > 
> > walra%moacs11@relay.NL.net (Waldi Ravens) writes:
> > 
> > |> Today I looked at a few socalled ports, and noticed that the atari switch
> > |> was mainly used to:
> > [...]
> > |> 2. compromise to the Gemdos filesystem limitations
> > |>    not necessary for the minix fs, and theoretically there could be a
> > |>    gemdos.xfs to overcome the gemdos fs limitations
> > 
> > In fact, i have written such a thing, based on _unx2dos in the
> > GNUlibs.  I have once planned to distribute it, but since we have
> > MinixFS, there is no need any more, i think.  Anyway, i'm still using
> > it as a replacement for tosfs in MiNT.
> 
> Does this emulate the Minix fs under a TOS filesystem?  That'd be great!

 (but still would suffer from GEMDOS other problems, like speed
(complete lack of), no link(), no x-bits, no sparse files, unliked open
files still visible to later open()s, `random' data loss on writes to
multiple opened files even with O_APPEND...  why would anyone want to
live with such a thing with MiNT where he can as well use minixfs?)

> I still wish someone would put together a complete UUCP package (all the
> stuff you need, sample config files, a mail reader, a newsreader, etc)
> that would work well under MiNT... then I could convert almost all of my
> system over to the minix fs and run under MiNT almost all the time...

 well... i now have hacks/ports of taylor uucp 1.03, smail 2.5, elm 2.3,
cnews-xt 1.3, nn 6.4.11.  the question is, should we i) standardize this
un*xoid-mint thing so tight that you could really have some `plug-in',
say, cnews binary tree that you put in /some/fixed/dir, edit active,
explist, batchparms, sys etc. in /another/fixed/dir and everything is
right so it would run?  or should we ii) concentrate more on a working
set of tools, shell, mintlib, compiler... so you could take the source
and patches for MiNT and configure directories and other things yourself
that otherwise would be cast in stone when using binaries.  i think that
would make more sense, what do others think?

 ok, more later :)  cheers
	Juergen
-- 
J"urgen Lock / nox@jelal.north.de / UUCP: ..!uunet!unido!uniol!jelal!nox
								...ohne Gewehr
PGP public key fingerprint =  8A 18 58 54 03 7B FC 12  1F 8B 63 C7 19 27 CF DA