Re: Informix 4.0 (was Re: Ancient History)

Path: emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!ns-mx!umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu!lbrintle From: lbrintle@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Lee Brintle) Newsgroups: comp.databases.informix Message-ID: <8302@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> Date: 25 Sep 91 07:06:25 GMT References: <1070@trac2000.ueci.com> <8269@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1991Sep25.043919.25626@informix.com> Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu Organization: U of Iowa, Iowa City, IA In article <1991Sep25.043919.25626@informix.com> aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes: >In article <8269@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> lbrintle@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Lee Brintle) writes: >>We've had a *lot* of problems with Informix (SE) 4.0; for example, one cannot >>compile *any* runner under the RDS system for our platform. It appears that >>they did not even try to run their product before releasing it... > >what platform is this? what problems do you get compiling new runners? SCO Xenix running on a Intel 386 box. Pretty generic configuration; SCO/Xenix is a popular (I think largest) version of Unix and Intel/386 is not exactly an unheard-of box. The compiler script is busted. As you mention later on, some doof put the libraries in the wrong order. Which also leads to another interesting point about Informix Tech Support; they didn't tell us the problem with the shell script. They just said, "yeah I guess that's a problem." >Without identifying "this problem", it's hard to say. As far as "wait 'til >4.1", 4.1 engines and embeddeds have been out for awhile, and 4.1 4GL and >ISQL for a few weeks. Without knowing what platform you're on, I can't >tell if 4.1 is shipping yet for yours; in any event, 4.0 RDS generally >has no problem making custom runners/debuggers. >There are known problems on a couple of platforms (IBM RT, NCR 3XXX, and I >think the 4.00.UG* version on SCO) [our platform] where a library was omitted >from the cc line; all of these can be worked around via simple changes to the >cfglgo/cfgldb shell scripts. Hmmm... that's odd. My tech support call was made months ago about this problem, and no engineer has called me back to say that this *rather*important* problem has been solved. Or was I supposed to pick up on this change through some other channel? Actually, I'm used to mucking around with the cfglgo shell script; it was busted in your 2.10K release too, and I figgered how to fix that one on my own 'cause Tech support didn't seem interested in the problem and we needed it fixed rather than confirmed broken. Shipping a shell script that crashes every time it's run? I'm sure that says wonders for whatever testing suite you use. -- Lee Brintle | ``And so, I leave you with this final word: Leepfrog / Tanj | twang.''