| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 267.1 | | GOSTE::CALLANDER | | Mon Aug 20 1990 17:08 | 6 |
| I believe if you check the release notes you will find that
there are now seperate start up files for the different
kits (in March there was only one kit). I will check with
the person responsible for the installation though and verify
this information.
|
| 267.2 | Update your doc set (see pointer in this file) | BSYBEE::EGOLF | John C. Egolf LKG2-2/T02 x226-7874 | Mon Aug 20 1990 20:45 | 17 |
| Jim,
I checked our system, and I've found:
SYS$STARTUP:MCC_STARTUP_DIR.COM !For the Director
SYS$STARTUP:MCC_STARTUP_BMS.COM !For Basic Mgt System
SYS$STARTUP:MCC_STARTUP_BMS2.COM !For V1.1 IFT update
SYS$STARTUP:MCC_STARTUP_TCPIP.COM !For the SNMP AM
Note that there are several, based upon the package you have
and that the $ has been removed (we're porting to Ultrix).
You *really* need the newer doc set, your March docs are out of
date.
Hope this helps,
JCE
|
| 267.3 | Thanks | GLORY::KATZ | Follow your conscience | Tue Aug 21 1990 09:33 | 4 |
| Thanks for the information. I'll update my docs asap.
-Jim-
|
| 267.4 | Why are the files called what they are? | CVMS::DOTEN | when great fat cadillacs roamed the earth... | Sat Mar 09 1991 11:47 | 26 |
| I've just been playing with the MCCBMS V1.0 kit on the Feb. 91 AD ConDist.
Question: hasn't this product gone through SQM? If so, why are basic guidelines
long-established for products being followed. One irritating point that pops
out right in your face is that these files:
MCC_STARTUP_DIR.COM
MCC_STARTUP_BMS.COM
MCC_STARTUP_TCPIP.COM
according to the SQM guidelines, should be called:
MCC$DIR_STARTUP.COM
MCC$BMS_STARTUP.COM
MCC$TCPID_STARTUP.COM
Why are the files called what they are? And why isn't the standard "$" delmiter
being used? Ditto with the logical names: why "MCC_" as a prefix and not the
product standard of "MCC$"? And all the files in MCC_COMMON are prefixed with
"MCC_" and "MCC$". What's going on here?
This may sound like a small issue, and it certainly isn't the end of the world,
but what's wrong with a little consistency? Could these things be fixed for the
next release?
-Glenn-
|
| 267.5 | | TOOK::SWIST | Jim Swist LKG2-2/T2 DTN 226-7102 | Sun Mar 10 1991 09:12 | 5 |
| SQM dropped the requirement for $ in component prefixes for those
products which ship on multiple platforms.
The mcc_ is correct.
|
| 267.6 | Who needs guidelines? | CVMS::DOTEN | when great fat cadillacs roamed the earth... | Sun Mar 10 1991 10:09 | 14 |
| That doesn't make any sense, but I'll check in to it...
So what't the excuse for the name of the startup files? Or does SQM no longer
have any guidelines for those? Or will Ultrix not allow MCC_BMS_STARTUP but only
MCC_STARTUP_BMS? Actually, why would you even have a .COM file on Ultrix?
This isn't directly related to MCC: these different platforms sure are shooting
the heck out of any consistency we had under VMS before. Everyone who goes to
a non-VMS system re-invents everything. We're back to pre-VMS days of RSTS and
RSX where each utility decided on it's own what to call things, what sort of
standards to use, and how to parse their command lines. It's pretty sad
actually... (I know, wrong conference.)
-Glenn-
|