Filepro Version 5.0.15

[Scott Walker]

-----Original Message-----
From:
filepro-list-bounces+scottwalker=ramsystemscorp.com at lists.celestial.com
[mailto:filepro-list-bounces+scottwalker=ramsystemscorp.com at lists.celest
ial.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Easton
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:36 PM
To: filepro list
Subject: RE: Filepro Version 5.0.15

Scott Walker wrote Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:28 PM:
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
>
filepro-list-bounces+scottwalker=ramsystemscorp.com at lists.celestial.com
>
[mailto:filepro-list-bounces+scottwalker=ramsystemscorp.com at lists.celest
> ial.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre A. Radley
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:43 PM
> To: Scott Walker
> Cc: 'Bud Henschen'; 'filePro Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: Filepro Version 5.0.15
> 
> Scott Walker propounded (on Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 08:58:36PM -0400):
> | Bud,
> | 
> | Just a complaint.  Take it for what it's worth.
> | 
> | Over two and a half years ago I reported a bug in rreport version
> | 5.0.14.
> | 
> | The bug was finally fixed in version 5.0.15.
> | 
> | I was told I would have to download a license file from fptech for
> each
> | customer of mine and then install that file on their system.   OK,
> | that's a pain, but to get this bug fixed I would go the extra mile.
> | I've had a customer complaining about it for over two years.
Anyhow,
> I
> | put 5.0.15 rreport on the first (7) customer systems and guess
what...
> | it will work on only (1) of them.  Why?  Because the license manager
> | code you grafted into 5.0.15 rreport requires the /usr/lib/libm.so.1
> and
> | related stuff to run.  FP support tells me that to use 5.0.15
rreport
> | the customer has to have support level supplement 646 installed on
> their
> | SCO Unix operating system.
> | 
> | So I'm faced with a situation where I now have to tell my customers
to
> | fix a bug they've been complaining about for over 2 years, they now
> have
> | to get their system integrator to come in and patch their operating
> | system
> | 
> | I really think it was a poor decision to implement this stuff in the
> way
> | it was.  A bug fix release that was so long in coming should not
> require
> | me or my customers to jump through hoops.
> 
> 
> JP said:
> <dissent>
> So you've got customers running on OSR 5.0.[56]; every such system
I've
> touched has oss646c installed.  If you don't think your customers
should
> upgrade to 5.0.7 or 6.0.0, then at least take advantage of oss646c.  I
> can't see why one should be anything but thankful for that patch,
since
> it allows lots of other binaries besides filePro's to run.
> </dissent>
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott says:
> 
> JP, as much as I respect your opinion, I disagree.  There is one
reason
> and one reason only that I want to put 5.0.15 rreport on these
customers
> systems...a bug fix.  They have waited 2 1/2 years for this bug fix.
> There is no justification that they should have to have their
operating
> system patched for an application program bug fix.  I did not install
> any of these SCO operating system.  Different system integrators
around
> the country have.  I just work on the customers application program
and
> typically my application is the only software running on their SCO
> server.
> 
> fp versions 5.0.0 - 5.0.14 ran on these systems as is.  5.0.15 should
> also.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Scott
>

Bruce asked:
 
Scott - since it's been been 2 1/1 years  - I'm curious - what was the
bug 
that was fixed?

Bruce

Bruce Easton
STN, Inc.


Scott replies:

It's been so long I can hardly remember, but it was something weird that
got fp confused and it skipped printing the page heading area when there
was only 1 record to be printed on that page and I was using the "print"
statement in processing.  I documented it for fp support back in 2005.