Re: [PARPORT] Re: [patch] parport-arca-16 (fwd)

Ely Wilson (
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:07:25 -0500 (CDT)

I recounted this message too late.

The plip.c code i posted works fine, and in teh cas eyou need plip but
have no more irq lines free then you're SOL but oh well right?

(oh, and I wasn't complaining about the system, i was attempting to
exemplify how ancient that hardware was, to top it off it is a laptop so I
can't very well stick a net card in it <frown>).

%--* ely % I bet I should *really* consider mailing these W-2's yes?

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, David Campbell wrote:

> > Here, I haven't completely looked through this diff i have, because
> Comparing 2.0.x and 2.1.x kernels is like chalk and cheese.

night and day? heh, i found it enlightening actually.

> Stop complaining, I have a DX 33 with 8Mb of ram under the desk.

*sniff* *sniff*

> a) Maintain Linux ZIP drivers
> b) Create Linux chipset specific parport drivers
> c) Start on ParSCSI drivers
> Any assistance to clearing this list most welcome

ParaSCSI? Say, there wouldn't happen to be a Par-to-SCSI driver 'anywhere'
that is compatible with my EPST cable would there? It would be nice if I
could resume burning, and it'd be one of the last 3 things tying me to a
two drive Win/Linux system.

-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Stan Ryckman wrote:

> I've seen plenty of discussion of "where procmail ought to go" on the
> procmail list itself, and for a few people rarely seen here to run off
> into their own corner and try and change procmail for their own purposes
> seems a bad idea to me. (Less sure about smartlist--I've heard that list
> is very quiet, but I don't subscribe.)

The intent is certainly not to "run off ... and change procmail for their
own purposes." It's merely to focus the discussion. It's possible but
difficult to search the list archives for tidbits, and I'd rather hear
what people are interested in *now*. I won't pretend that I don't have a
use in mind for procmail -- if I didn't, I wouldn't be getting into this
discussion in the first place -- but I have no intention of hijacking it.

I read through a hundred recent messages or so from each of the procmail
and SmartList lists before asking about "Ongoing development" on the
SmartList list. The procmail messages were almost entirely Q&A about
procmailrc recipes, and (until after I asked) the SmartList messages were
mostly about setup.

Here's a statistic: approximately 3% of the procmail messages archived in
September mention the word "patch". Fewer actually include one or point
to one. I was hoping for a bit better hit rate.

However, perhaps I was premature in setting up a new list. Straw poll?

Send a message to me at:

indicating which of the following most accurately reflects your opinion:

(1) The procmail-future list should shuts down; discussion occurs on the
    procmail and SmartList lists only.

(2) The procmail-future list should forward to the procmail list.

(3) The procmail-future list should forward to the SmartList list.

(4) Both (2) and (3).

(5) It's OK to continue procmail-future as a separate discussion.

(6) This whole thing is a waste of time, procmail isn't going anywhere.

(You don't need to use the URLs, I just added them in case some folks have
UAs that can interpret them. Freeform replies are fine.)

In addition to the above, please comment on whether you think SmartList
is worth pursuing (if you have an opinion).

I'll summarize (and act on) the results after next Friday, Oct. 16.

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Stan Ryckman wrote:
> At 05:18 PM 10/9/98 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> >As a first contribution to this effort, here's an extremely simple bug fix
> >for the "multigram" program to address a problem that was mentioned on the
> >"Ongoing development" thread:
> >
> >On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, mark david mcCreary wrote:
> >> A big problem is that it does not handle different level of domain
> >> nodes correctly. That is, does not match up to
> >> > >> Very frustrating for both joe and the listmaster.
> That's not a bug... those are *DIFFERENT* email addresses. In some domains,
> they do NOT correspond to the same user, or one may be his shell account
> and the other his ppp acount.

Whether it's a good idea for multigram to score those addresses as similar
is open to debate, but the algorithm *is* intended to do so.

If you look carefully at the findatlast() function in multigram.c, you'll
see that without the patch I posted, it *always* returns NULL. That means
that an entire branch of lowcase() is never executed. That can't possibly
be what SRB intended.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 30 Dec 1998 - 10:18:34 EST