On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Ruel, Marc-Antoine wrote:

I still have some "fear" about the merge. It's about the way both project diverted from the main branch. I don't feel confident about it since my merge capabilities are limited; I don't even have CVS software currently installed on my machine but that should be fixed soon. :)

I don't want to put all the burden of merging on you but the sooner we can merge everything back in the main tree, the better it is.

It would be great to have everything merged into cvs, but I think we should first work out the differences between our implementations and then submit the results for inclusion. I don't mind working through this stuff. If we can make a version of tn5250 that works, perhaps the patches will more likely be accepted.

I haven't looked at the x5250 sources but why is it branched from tn5250? Is it so different in implementation?

x5250 is another front end to tn5250. It uses lib5250 for all the communication with the as/400 and 5250 protocols. x5250 can run with an unmodified tn5250 (lib5250) but then it doesn't have any of the new features I've been working on adding.

It is packaged separately from tn5250 for two reasons: x5250 is GPL and apparently there are license issues with openssl that tn5250 uses and secondly I don't have cvs write access.

James Rich

It's not the software that's free; it's you.
        - billyskank on Groklaw

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.