home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!unixland!bill
- From: bill@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Heiser)
- Subject: Re: Building 2.4.13 on a Sun 386i
- Message-ID: <1992Dec13.221428.4211@unixland.natick.ma.us>
- Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix (508) 655-3848
- References: <1992Dec13.142616.23877@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <1992Dec13.142910.23932@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:14:28 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- cbarkley@alex (The DarkMage) writes:
-
- >I am still trying to get elm built on our Sun 386i machines with no
- >luck. Last time I posted the list of undefined symbols, I was told
- >that I needed to do something with nls. Sadly, I don't even know what
- >nls is, much less how to cope with it if it is misbehaving. Can anyone
- >out there give me any more specific information? Also, has anyone else
- >ever tried to build elm on a 386i? Were you successful?
-
- I found it best (not only on 386i but other systems as well) to just
- stick with the 2.3 version of Elm. The 2.4 version seems to have lots
- of problems compiling on various machines, has funny patches that require
- you to manually edit files instead of following "normal" "patch" techniques,
- and has problems dealing with domains if you don't manually edit the
- config file. In contrast, elm2.3 compiles "out of the box", and works
- well on the platforms I manage.
-
- >BTW, where the heck does "elm" come from, anyway? Is it short for
- >something, or am I missing some obvious connection to trees?
-
- ELectronic Mail?
- I haven't been able to get any of my users to actually call it ELM
- anyway. They seem to insist on calling it E L M. No matter I guess :-)
-
- --
- heiser@world.std.com
-