Michael wrote:
>:-((((( if you can send me line number or variable name, I will modify
>cfgwiz source code today, before releasing 1.66
When I compiled cfgwiz.exe myself (from the latest source downloadable -
this one needs to be changed BTW, the directories are all screwed up) it
said "C:\ARTEST1\A.BAT" instead of the normal junk. The files differ in 6Kb
so obviously one of us is using the wrong version...
BTW: What I said about the init of the variables wasn't true, the variable
in question (abat) will be NULL before it's used unless a.bat is found in
the path.
But the way the source I downloaded behaves and how Arachne should behave
is widely diffrent - shouldn't the first directory in the PATH be used,
with my source the directory (in the PATH) that already has an a.bat file
there will be used (or the arachne directory otherwise). It would seem
appropiate if we could download the source that's actually used. Or am I
dead wrong here?
The date of the cfgwiz.exe file backs me up - I know I got the source from
Vitex sometime after febuary (since I got it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - it's
not left there anymore) and cfgwiz.exe is made in December. If you would
ask Vitex for his source (or mine) everything would be fine. (I have told
you about the incorrect cfgwiz.exe version earlier).
>It is looking for first item in path, so it shouldn't make difference (?)
Well it does, look at this file and tell me what my PATH is:
<begin c:\autoexec.bat>
@normal.bat y z
<end c:\autoexec.bat>
There's no way you can tell me that, if we look with getenv("PATH") you'll
get it.
>I am not sure why larger files= is needed anyway ;-)
Me neither, I've succesfully used Arachne with less than 50 (30 IIRC), I
don't even think that core.exe can use more than 10 at a time anyway (a
limit in BC according to the epppd source, why epppd would bother with that
is beyond me).
BTW: I'm still not ready with epppd 0.7 since I haven't had time, nor do I
have the latest source for Arachne, I'll be going away over the weekend so
don't expect it soon.
I could give you a version for the time being but I think that would be bad
- better to finish it completly first. I'm also looking into compressing
the packages that are sent and/or recieved - only done if the ISPs server
has agreed to it of course.
