home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Acorn User 3
/
AUCD3.iso
/
airport
/
browsers
/
acornet
/
archive
/
archive897
/
000074_owner-acornet@…s.barnet.ac.uk _Thu Aug 14 11:24:30 1997.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1997-08-28
|
2KB
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by odie.barnet.ac.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id LAA32474
for acornet-list; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:24:30 +0100
Received: from beech.sucs.soton.ac.uk (beech.sucs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.129.138])
by odie.barnet.ac.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA32470
for <acornet@lists.barnet.ac.uk>; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:24:16 +0100
From: S.N.Brodie@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Received: from bright.ecs.soton.ac.uk (bright.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.64.201])
by beech.sucs.soton.ac.uk (8.8.5/server) with SMTP id LAA21843
for <acornet@lists.barnet.ac.uk>; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:24:47 +0100 (BST)
Received: from dsse.ecs.soton.ac.uk by bright.ecs.soton.ac.uk; Thu, 14 Aug 97 11:27:03 BST
Received: from mccarthy.ecs.soton.ac.uk by dsse.ecs.soton.ac.uk; Thu, 14 Aug 97 11:22:49 BST
Message-Id: <18624.9708141022@mccarthy.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Acornet020 available for trial
To: acornet@lists.barnet.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:22:48 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <954515b947%philip@blencathra.demon.co.uk> from "Philip Powell" at Aug 13, 97 04:29:30 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-acornet@lists.barnet.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: acornet@lists.barnet.ac.uk
X-maillist: acornet
Philip Powell wrote:
>
> Is ArcWeb 1.89 to be in the 'public' release of Acornet0.20? When I
> was downloading the latest version last night (1.90) I am sure that I
> read that future upgrade patches for ArcWeb would only cater for
> upgrades from 1.90
As long as I don't get any really nasty problems with 1.90p1 I shall
recommend to Carol that the version included be increased to 1.90p1.
1.89 was the latest available when the current 0.20 was built.
The reason why I have said that future patches will build only on
ArcWeb 1.90 and later is that there was a lot of new stuff in version
1.90 which would just fill up the patch archives needlessly.
--
Stewart Brodie, Electronics & Computer Science, Southampton University.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~snb94r/