Re: Applying old samx patch to newer sam?

[Ed Kubaitis <ejk@uiuc.edu>]

Hi,

AFAIK, the failed pieces in the samx patch can be ignored. As
I recollect, the failed pieces were applying changes which the
new (circa 1993) libXg provided in a different way/place. I've
been using versions of sam + samx patch since then, building it
most recently a few months ago for Redhat Linux 6.1 and have not
seen any problems.

Ed
--------------------------
Ed Kubaitis (ejk@uiuc.edu)
CCSO - University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign


Paul Jackson wrote:
> 
> Bengt wrote:
> |> Please note that I am trying to 'maintain' sam-9libs.
> 
> Thank-you and bless you!
> 
> |> I rather not include this [samx] in sam-9libs.
> 
> That's fine - I wasn't expecting sam-9libs to accomodate
> samx.  I acknowledge that samx is "controversial".
> 
> I should have been clearer that I was more looking
> for feedback from other samx users as to  whether
> I should worry about the failed chunk of the patch.
> 
> |> 1 sam is supposed to be mouse driven, not keyboard driven.
> 
> It is common-place for the finest tools to be written
> with a focused vision, and then for users to turn around
> and do the darndest things with them.  Life is good.
> 
> =======================================================================
> I won't rest till it's the best ...        Software Production Engineer
> Paul Jackson (pj@sgi.com; pj@usa.net) 3x1373 http://sam.engr.sgi.com/pj