[TCPware 5.9-2] FTP Identification

[Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER]

Is this newsgroup still active (or should I ask PSC support)?

I'm running TCPware V5.9-2 (on OpenVMS Alpha V8.4) and (though I'm even
on FTP_V592P010 patchlevel) the FTP server still identifies itself as
"... FTP-OpenVMS FTPD T5.9-1 (c) 2007 Process Software"

Is this bug not important enough to be fixed or is the TCPware software
unfortunately now used so rarely that it was so far undetected?

[Richard Whalen]

That's an "error" that we are aware of, but too minor to fix with a patch.

Post by Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER
Is this newsgroup still active (or should I ask PSC support)?
I'm running TCPware V5.9-2 (on OpenVMS Alpha V8.4) and (though I'm even
on FTP_V592P010 patchlevel) the FTP server still identifies itself as
"... FTP-OpenVMS FTPD T5.9-1 (c) 2007 Process Software"
Is this bug not important enough to be fixed or is the TCPware software
unfortunately now used so rarely that it was so far undetected?
--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTÖGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist
A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist

[Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER]

In article <ijgln5$8e7$***@news.process.com>, "Richard Whalen" <***@process.com> writes:

Hi Richard

Thanks for responding

Post by Richard Whalen
That's an "error" that we are aware of, but too minor to fix with a patch.

Too minor to fix with an extra patch.
That means, it was noticed after last FTP patch came out
(months ago) and will be fixed with the next FTP patch. Hopefully.

I only wonder, why I see version numbers bugs so often (over the years)
I always thought, that version numbers are constants filled into the
compilers (and/or linkers) during the build by the build procedures.

Either it isn't this way (and version numbers are hardcoded in every
part of the product), or the build procedures forgot to rebuild some
parts of the whole product...

Never mind

[Richard Whalen]

In most of the places the version numbers are filled in by the linker but
there are a few places where it is part of the program text.

Post by Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER
Hi Richard
Thanks for responding

Post by Richard Whalen
That's an "error" that we are aware of, but too minor to fix with a patch.

Too minor to fix with an extra patch.
That means, it was noticed after last FTP patch came out
(months ago) and will be fixed with the next FTP patch. Hopefully.
I only wonder, why I see version numbers bugs so often (over the years)
I always thought, that version numbers are constants filled into the
compilers (and/or linkers) during the build by the build procedures.
Either it isn't this way (and version numbers are hardcoded in every
part of the product), or the build procedures forgot to rebuild some
parts of the whole product...
Never mind
--
Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTÖGER
Network and OpenVMS system specialist
A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist