Re: Multiple INFORMIXDIR

Jonathan Leffler wrote: [cutting] > * They use the same version of the library, so it does not matter > whether the UC1 executables use the UC1 or UD7 library since > they're the same, or > * They use different versions of the library, so the suffix letter > is different and they are each insulated from the other. > > The only times this runs into trouble are (1) if you remove UD7 so the > symlink points to a now non-existent $INFORMIXDIR, or (2) we goof and > the libraries are given the same name but are not compatible after > all. In (1), you can restore the symlink so it points to the still > installed UC1 library. In (2), you can report the bug to IBM Informix > and get the new version. If (2) arises, we would hear about it > quickly - very quickly. And release a patch slowly - very slowly - very, very slowly :-)) -- Paul Watson # Oninit Ltd # Growing old is mandatory Tel: +44 1436 672201 # Growing up is optional Fax: +44 1436 678693 # Mob: +44 7818 003457 # www.oninit.com #

Paul Watson wrote: > Jonathan Leffler wrote: > [cutting] >> * They use the same version of the library, so it does not matter >> whether the UC1 executables use the UC1 or UD7 library since >> they're the same, or >> * They use different versions of the library, so the suffix letter >> is different and they are each insulated from the other. >> >> The only times this runs into trouble are (1) if you remove UD7 so the >> symlink points to a now non-existent $INFORMIXDIR, or (2) we goof and >> the libraries are given the same name but are not compatible after >> all. In (1), you can restore the symlink so it points to the still >> installed UC1 library. In (2), you can report the bug to IBM Informix >> and get the new version. If (2) arises, we would hear about it >> quickly - very quickly. > > And release a patch slowly - very slowly - very, very slowly :-)) Ah, bollocks to that. I've found that TS will patch very quickly. However, it may take time to get that patch into a GA release. And the reason for that is that no-one wants to upgrade their software weekly. :op -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bu0k6e$c9i1b$1@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de... > Paul Watson wrote: > > > Jonathan Leffler wrote: > > [cutting] > >> * They use the same version of the library, so it does not matter > >> whether the UC1 executables use the UC1 or UD7 library since > >> they're the same, or > >> * They use different versions of the library, so the suffix letter > >> is different and they are each insulated from the other. > >> > >> The only times this runs into trouble are (1) if you remove UD7 so the > >> symlink points to a now non-existent $INFORMIXDIR, or (2) we goof and > >> the libraries are given the same name but are not compatible after > >> all. In (1), you can restore the symlink so it points to the still > >> installed UC1 library. In (2), you can report the bug to IBM Informix > >> and get the new version. If (2) arises, we would hear about it > >> quickly - very quickly. > > > > And release a patch slowly - very slowly - very, very slowly :-)) > > Ah, bollocks to that. I've found that TS will patch very quickly. However, > it may take time to get that patch into a GA release. And the reason for > that is that no-one wants to upgrade their software weekly. :op How quickly is very quickly in your experience? We've been told that the patch to fix the 9.40 -> 9.21 reversion bug I mentioned last week will take 4-6 weeks to be availble at best.

Neil Truby wrote: > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:bu0k6e$c9i1b$1@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de... >> Paul Watson wrote: >> >> > Jonathan Leffler wrote: >> > [cutting] >> >> * They use the same version of the library, so it does not matter >> >> whether the UC1 executables use the UC1 or UD7 library since >> >> they're the same, or >> >> * They use different versions of the library, so the suffix letter >> >> is different and they are each insulated from the other. >> >> >> >> The only times this runs into trouble are (1) if you remove UD7 so the >> >> symlink points to a now non-existent $INFORMIXDIR, or (2) we goof and >> >> the libraries are given the same name but are not compatible after >> >> all. In (1), you can restore the symlink so it points to the still >> >> installed UC1 library. In (2), you can report the bug to IBM Informix >> >> and get the new version. If (2) arises, we would hear about it >> >> quickly - very quickly. >> > >> > And release a patch slowly - very slowly - very, very slowly :-)) >> >> Ah, bollocks to that. I've found that TS will patch very quickly. >> However, it may take time to get that patch into a GA release. And the >> reason for that is that no-one wants to upgrade their software weekly. >> :op > > How quickly is very quickly in your experience? > We've been told that the patch to fix the 9.40 -> 9.21 reversion bug I > mentioned last week will take 4-6 weeks to be availble at best. It does depend on several factors. However, although TS will generally commit only to 45 days as their SLA, most of the patches I've been involved in have been turned around in less than 7 days. One particularly memorable patch was turned around in less than 24 hours. YMMV, though. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche