Beebem on Github

Got a programming project in mind? Tell everyone about it!
User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:35 pm

Actually the version now on Github is a fork from an old (I believe 0.0.8 ) version of David Eggleston's unix-beebem, which is definitely different from the Windows Beebem sourcetree. I've seen some stuff in the unix sourcetree which indicates a windows version could be build, but I would assume that most people use Mike Wyatt's 141 anyway as it also works well on linux wine.

I don't think we should attempt to merge these two.

I'd like to suggest I set up my own repository under my own GitHub account and if wished so you can fork into the Stardot area.

But I first have to figure out how to do that properly with VS, I'm used to gnu gcc....

User avatar
ThomasAdam
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:35 am
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby ThomasAdam » Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:42 pm

pstnotpd wrote:Actually the version now on Github is a fork from an old (I believe 0.0.8 ) version of David Eggleston's unix-beebem, which is definitely different from the Windows Beebem sourcetree. I've seen some stuff in the unix sourcetree which indicates a windows version could be build, but I would assume that most people use Mike Wyatt's 141 anyway as it also works well on linux wine.

I don't think we should attempt to merge these two.

I'd like to suggest I set up my own repository under my own GitHub account and if wished so you can fork into the Stardot area.

But I first have to figure out how to do that properly with VS, I'm used to gnu gcc....


This is difficult then -- because during Beebem's history -- there used to be two separate versions: a windows fork and a Linux fork. Now, with all your efforts in getting Beebem working on Windows, are you saying we're back to where Beebem once was? That either Beebem isn't being used on Linux much, and that whatever efforts there have been in the past to unify the two sources, are now not necessary? For anyone wanting to use Beebem under Linux, wine is indicated?

I don't mind, but I want to be really clear what this means for Linux users of Beebem, because at this point we've got a fork.

Kindly,
Thomas

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:09 pm

I see your point. The wine route worked for me but I guess there'd be linux users out there who want to use this version. But wouldn't the same apply to all other forks out there (Apple, PSPBEEB etc).

Just to be sure, I see on de unix-beebem download page that there were some patches on 0.0.13 which now appears to be your current repository. We're these applied? It also appears a windows build in it's current state doesn't weem feasible.

Anyway, my main interest in doing this is getting ARM7TDMI working on the latest beebem and as Kieran Mockford's patch was on the windows sourcetree that would be the quickest route. After that I'd like to create repositories for the Yagarto stuff I did.

I'm personally not that interested in spending time on a "great unification". Having said that, if I get the stub working I can sure have a look at integrating that in the unix-beebem sourcetree as well.

User avatar
ThomasAdam
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:35 am
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby ThomasAdam » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:20 pm

pstnotpd wrote:I see your point. The wine route worked for me but I guess there'd be linux users out there who want to use this version. But wouldn't the same apply to all other forks out there (Apple, PSPBEEB etc).


I don't know about other forks -- I'm just referring to what the "official" Beebem once had -- which was working on both Windows and Linux. Those other forks are by definition their own -- I've not seen or heard any efforts from their respective maintainers in getting that work moved across. That said, if Beebem becomes more establishes on stardot (which, thanks to your efforts, it might well do), we might see that happening. We can but hope. :)

pstnotpd wrote: I'm personally not that interested in spending time on a "great unification". Having said that, if I get the stub working I can sure have a look at integrating that in the unix-beebem sourcetree as well.


That would be nice -- I see no reason why we should necessarily restrict the existing Linux/UNIX users of Beebem in this way. That seems rather bolshy. The other approach we can take here is turn b-em into something which is more UNIX-friendly, if trying to support both in Beebem is untenable.

So what I can do, certainly, is rename the current Beebem repo on stardot to something like "Beebem-archive", and then I can create a new Beebem repository which you can then push to with your changes -- but before I do that, I'd like other opinions first.

Kindly.
Thomas

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:32 pm

ThomasAdam wrote:So what I can do, certainly, is rename the current Beebem repo on stardot to something like "Beebem-archive", and then I can create a new Beebem repository which you can then push to with your changes -- but before I do that, I'd like other opinions first.


Agreed!

User avatar
hoglet
Posts: 6352
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:21 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby hoglet » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:45 pm

Apologies if this becomes somewhat of a religious debate, but can anyone summarize the benefits of BeebEm over B-Em, and visa versa?

There's quite a lot of new hardware development going on for the Beeb, and it would be nice to drive this into the emulator(s). But I can't help feeling that with two different emulators, that efforts become more diluted.

Dave

User avatar
ThomasAdam
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:35 am
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby ThomasAdam » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:51 pm

hoglet wrote:Apologies if this becomes somewhat of a religious debate, but can anyone summarize the benefits of BeebEm over B-Em, and visa versa?


Well, BeebEm has Econet support which b-em lacks. But really, I'm not sure there's much of a comparison to make. Both emulators have always been around, and why can't it be the case that they exist?

Kindly,
Thomas

User avatar
tricky
Posts: 1811
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:25 am
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby tricky » Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:41 pm

On Windows:
B-em has a more powerful debugger, but beebem is more friendly to those used to a GUI on their debugger with a watch window.
B-em has a faster and more accurate simulation, but beebem simulates many more things.
Beebem has a much more friendly set of dependencies.
On Linux, I never use Linux!

User avatar
BigEd
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:24 am
Location: West
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby BigEd » Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:22 pm

One of them, pretty sure it was BeebEm, supported a textual view of the input/output and offered Copy and Paste, although it's not working for me now (on Wine, in OSX)

Supporting a variety of copro models is interesting to me - with the Matchbox and PiTubeDirect, more people can be interested in running things like Arm Basic, PanOS, DosPlus.

User avatar
tricky
Posts: 1811
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:25 am
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby tricky » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:23 pm

Copy and paste on beebem is great, although less important if you are using beebasm.

SteveF
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 8:34 pm

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby SteveF » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:38 pm

hoglet wrote:Apologies if this becomes somewhat of a religious debate, but can anyone summarize the benefits of BeebEm over B-Em, and visa versa?

Here's my very personal view on this, for what it's worth...

I use both b-em running natively as a Linux app and BeebEm running under Wine on Linux, mostly for software development (but with the odd bit of gaming). This may not be the optimal route (I have a vague idea there's a Windows version of b-em with a more full-featured GUI, and if so that might run under Wine - I just haven't looked yet), but it's what I've ended up with.

For me the advantages of BeebEm are:
  • BeebEm supports "logical keyboard mapping", which makes doing development using the emulator much more pleasant as (e.g.) SHIFT-8 is "*". This isn't quite perfect because (e.g.) the # key on my PC UK keyboard produces "\" in BeebEm, but it's still fairly good. (I tried to resolve this once and gave up rapidly; I think it may be because Wine thinks I have a US keyboard, but I'm not sure. I have used BeebEm on real Windows and this problem doesn't manifest there, so it's probably not BeebEm's fault.)
  • BeebEm allows me to select which banks are ROM/RAM and write protect sideways RAM easily from a menu.
  • BeebEm has a higher maximum emulation speed, which is useful when doing long-running stuff in the emulator. (b-em tops out at 5x, BeebEm goes up to 100x and my PC's CPU maxes out at about 10x IIRC).
  • BeebEm has a much nicer GUI - the b-em Linux GUI uses too small a font to be conveniently usable with the mouse for me, so I end up navigating around it with cursor keys which I find a little annoying.
The advantages of b-em are:
  • I built b-em myself (this might be easy for BeebEm, but I haven't tried) so I can hack the code when I'm debugging - for example, I have a little profiling hack which counts the number of times an instruction is executed at each address, and I use a Python script to annotate beebasm's listing with these counts.
  • b-em feels like a more accurate emulation on the whole, although this may be unfair. The only b-em bug I'm aware of at the moment is in its handling of code executing in ANDY on a B+ (http://www.stardot.org.uk/forums/viewto ... =3&t=11892)
  • The b-em command line debugger is very useful (if not perfect), whereas I've never been able to get BeebEm's debugger to work for me at all.
I keep thinking I need to investigate jsbeeb in more detail - the debugging potential sounds huge - but I've never got round to it. Rightly or wrongly it always feels sluggish for me, possibly because I have my web browser clogged up with too many other tabs or something, or maybe my PC is a bit slow.

I'd love to have a native Linux emulator with a nice GUI!

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:59 pm

Well, this is a unexpected but quick success!

BeebEm4.14 with Sprow copro enabled and running my UMB scheme interpreter demo :D

Hail to the power of GIT!

For those interested. I tracked down a "clean" version of the 4.12 sourcetree on which the Sprow patch was based. Branched both a 4.14 version and an ARM7TDMI from that. Made them build, merged and resolved the conflicts and that's about it.

beebem414SPROW.png

User avatar
pau1ie
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 9:48 pm
Location: Bedford

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pau1ie » Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:34 pm

Thanks for this.

I use Linux a lot as I find it a friendlier environment for developing http://bbcmicro.co.uk.

Beebem doesn't work on Linux. b-em has a strange interface on Linux (You have to press F11 to get the menu) but it works OK once you get used to it. More things seem to work on b-em (Because of the more accurate emulation), but even on Windows I find Beebem has a friendlier interface.

I have not tried them in wine. I expect that would work, but I find it easier to use native applications.

I would be grateful if Windows and Linux versions of b-em could be built from the same tree, but since I am not offering to help I guess I don't really get a vote!
I'm working on http://bbcmicro.co.uk

Coeus
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby Coeus » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:13 pm

The history of BeebEm as far as I remember is that it started a Unix application, was ported to Windows without regard to maintaining the ability to run on Unix/Linux etc. and then was ported back again but the Linux port consisted of emulating enough of the Windows API to enable it to run and was always playing catchup with the Windows version which continued to be developed.

As I use Linux that is one of the reasons I decided to focus on B-em. Nominally B-Em supports both Linux and Windows and seems to do so in a way that means it can be maintained in such a way that continues. The GUI is not as fully-featured as the BeebEm one, though.

On the question of what you shoukd target when writing a module for a new piece of hardware, while it may be a nuisance to have two slightly different versions the differences may not be major if the module doesn't inetgrate tightly with the emulated CPU. If it sits behind a small set of memory addresses it may be trivial to port a module from one to the other. Certainly that was the case in porting the BeebEm SCSI module to B-Em.

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:46 pm

Hi all, I did not intend to start a merit discussion about the emulators. I just wanted a Sprow copro enabled, resizable emulator which I seem to have now. I can do "my thing".

I'd be happy to put this sourcetree into the stardot area if anybody's interested. If it is considered more worthwhile to invest in B-em it's also fine and as said I can investigate integrating in there as the ARMulator code itself seems plain C manhandled to fit the C++ framework of BeebEm.

But to be honest I'd be more interested in properly setting up the Yagarto stuff I did into the stardot area and picking up my long abandoned hexarom project. The whole reason I wanted this setup is to test out the tube enabled version of my hexarom code using osword calls. That with my actual master in store at the mo, suffering from a corrupted CF drive.

And thanks for pointing me to the Pi copro stuff. That looks very good! Been away too long :oops:

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:27 pm

tom_seddon wrote:I did some folder diffs (BeebEm105, BeebEm403, BeebEm414, from Mike Wyatt's page; mjwoodcock's github repo) and it does look like BeebEm414 might be a better place to start - looks like it has ARM, some extra serial stuff (from Rob O'Donnell) and Econet stuff (from JGH), and somebody's been through and popped the GPL header on the top of each file. Unfortunately it bears very little relation to the mjwoodcock repo, and the UI code is all Windows stuff.

BeebEm403 is a bit closer, but there's still a fair bit of divergence...

Subject to doing the diffs (I just did a search through the file lists), it looks like I might have some additional versions of BeebEm in my backups...

--Tom


@Tom: You still have those versions? If we decide to create a github repository on stardot it might be nice to create a proper history from all public source releases I've found a 3.xx version somewhere :)

tom_seddon
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby tom_seddon » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:53 pm

pstnotpd wrote:@Tom: You still have those versions? If we decide to create a github repository on stardot it might be nice to create a proper history from all public source releases I've found a 3.xx version somewhere :)


I've put an archive here: http://ffe3.com/.BeebEm/BeebEm.tar.bz2 (~30MBytes; ~180MBytes unpacked)

This has: 1.02, 1.05, 1.4, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3b3, 3.2, 4.02, 4.03, 4.12 and 4.14. So that's not exactly a complete list, but might help flesh things out...

There's a src folder in there with each version's source code in a folder. (I had multiple copies on multiple backups, not all numbered :) - so the source code was how I determined whether one was a unique version or a copy of another.) Then there's a disorganized folder that has for each version, except 1.02, either what was in the zip, or what was in the Program Files\BeebEm folder after installation (since there were a couple that I only had as installer EXEs).

For some reason, I seem to have source code only for 1.02.

--Tom

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:21 pm

Thanks Tom!

Just out of interest I'll try to build up a historical git repository so we can see what actually changed.

Software Archaeology :D

Does anybody know about the IP status of the speech and 512 code?

User avatar
tricky
Posts: 1811
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:25 am
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby tricky » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:56 pm

I had a quick look in the MAME docs, but didn't see anything.

chrisn
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:31 am
Location: UK

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby chrisn » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:02 pm

tom_seddon wrote:
pstnotpd wrote:@Tom: You still have those versions? If we decide to create a github repository on stardot it might be nice to create a proper history from all public source releases I've found a 3.xx version somewhere :)


I've put an archive here: http://ffe3.com/.BeebEm/BeebEm.tar.bz2 (~30MBytes; ~180MBytes unpacked)

This has: 1.02, 1.05, 1.4, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3b3, 3.2, 4.02, 4.03, 4.12 and 4.14. So that's not exactly a complete list, but might help flesh things out...

--Tom


Have you seen the fesh0r BeebEm GitHub repository? https://github.com/fesh0r/beebem This has a lot of the published versions, but I don't think all of the files in each have been included - which may be fine if they're non-essential.

I've just checked my backups, and I've got these versions: 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, 0.71, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.3, 1.4, 1.41, 1.6, 2.0, 2.2, 3.0, 3.7, 3.82. There's also BeebEmDOS-1_0.zip and BeebEmDOS-1_1.zip but these are binaries only, and beeb_win_0_04.zip and BeebWin-0.4rs.zip, which are early Windows builds. I can try to dig them out if they're of interest.

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:44 pm

chrisn wrote:Have you seen the fesh0r BeebEm GitHub repository? https://github.com/fesh0r/beebem This has a lot of the published versions, but I don't think all of the files in each have been included - which may be fine if they're non-essential.

I've just checked my backups, and I've got these versions: 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, 0.71, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.3, 1.4, 1.41, 1.6, 2.0, 2.2, 3.0, 3.7, 3.82. There's also BeebEmDOS-1_0.zip and BeebEmDOS-1_1.zip but these are binaries only, and beeb_win_0_04.zip and BeebWin-0.4rs.zip, which are early Windows builds. I can try to dig them out if they're of interest.


Thanks, that actually looks like a pretty good starting point actually. I'll check this weekend if I can get the various version compiling starting with the newest.

@Kieran & Thomas. If you'd like a windows specific repository on the stardot page the fesh0r repository looks like a good one to fork.

User avatar
ThomasAdam
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:35 am
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby ThomasAdam » Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:47 pm

pstnotpd wrote:@Kieran & Thomas. If you'd like a windows specific repository on the stardot page the fesh0r repository looks like a good one to fork.


I'm only going to get involved in BeebEm, if asked to... If you want help with infrastructure and Git-wrangling, then by all means ask me, and I'm more than happy to help.

Kindly,
Thomas

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:39 am

As said in another topic. I've now uploaded the 4.15 windows sources to my own github account. It builds on W10 with VS 2015 and the legacy directX SDK.

Sprow's ARM7TDMI is enabled with 64MB but you will need the sprow rom image to have it working. As I don't have permission I haven't included the rom image.

@stardot admin's: you're welcome to fork to the stardot area.

https://github.com/pstnotpd/BeebEm

chrisn
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:31 am
Location: UK

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby chrisn » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:20 am

pstnotpd wrote:As said in another topic. I've now uploaded the 4.15 windows sources to my own github account. It builds on W10 with VS 2015 and the legacy directX SDK.

Sprow's ARM7TDMI is enabled with 64MB but you will need the sprow rom image to have it working. As I don't have permission I haven't included the rom image.

@stardot admin's: you're welcome to fork to the stardot area.

https://github.com/pstnotpd/BeebEm

Excellent stuff!

I like the idea of the stardot repo containing the historical Beebem releases. I've had a closer look at the fesh0r repo, but this has a bunch of whitespace changes (tabs converted to spaces) as compared to the orignal files, so it's not really suitable. I'll have a go at creating a new repo based on my own archives and the files that Tom posted above. Maybe we could use this as the basis for the stardot repo?

We'll also need to work out what to do with the existing stardot/beebem repo, which is based on the Linux BeebEm (presumably from here: http://beebem-unix.bbcmicro.com/). At some point it'd be great to be able target multiple platforms from the same code base, but it'll take some work to get there. For now, maybe we should rename stardot/beebem to stardot/beebem-unix?

User avatar
ThomasAdam
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:35 am
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby ThomasAdam » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:24 am

Ah, I mentioned in another thread, I'm happy to move the existing beebem repo out of the way and clone this one in its place.

User avatar
hoglet
Posts: 6352
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:21 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby hoglet » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:54 am

(moved from the other thread)

There's not much history in pstnotpd's repository. It would be useful to at least start with the current 4.14 version so we can clearly see the new work.

There is some recent history in sourceforge:
https://sourceforge.net/p/beebem/code/commit_browser

There is more history here:
https://github.com/fesh0r/beebem/commits/master
but this is missing the 4.0x releases.

The other thing that occurs to me is that features that existed in the past have been dropped. For example, Master 512 (x86) and Speech (tms5220) support. It seems a shame to loose that work. They were dropped because that code was deemed incompatible with GPL. I'd like to understand what the actual issue was here. The 4.03 release is important, as it's the last version to include these two features.

I do think it's worth taking the time to find as many past releases as possible.

Full changelog for the Windows version here:
http://www.mkw.me.uk/beebem/CHANGES.txt

Dave

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:00 pm

ThomasAdam wrote:Ah, I mentioned in another thread, I'm happy to move the existing beebem repo out of the way and clone this one in its place.


I too would opt for a beebem-unix and beebem-windows repository, as the fork that's there now seems up to date.

I'm trying to iron out the Invalid map message, which actually turns out to be a weird error reading the debugger map file (sscanf gives return value 2 instead of the respected 3) and perhaps fix the 8271 bug mentioned in Beebem save state and load state if someone can identify the issue that is :mrgreen:

@Dave: I'm working on a local repository where I did the Sprow 4.12 -> 4.14 merge and build in the first place so that's not historically complete either.

So if we want that I'd suggest building up this historical repository first on stardot and lastly merging my 4.15 code.

User avatar
hoglet
Posts: 6352
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:21 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby hoglet » Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:03 pm

chrisn wrote:I like the idea of the stardot repo containing the historical Beebem releases. I've had a closer look at the fesh0r repo, but this has a bunch of whitespace changes (tabs converted to spaces) as compared to the orignal files, so it's not really suitable. I'll have a go at creating a new repo based on my own archives and the files that Tom posted above. Maybe we could use this as the basis for the stardot repo?

I think we should give Chris a bit of time to try this, and see how well it works out.

Please try to make sure the 4.03 release is included, for reasons outlined above. The source is here:
http://www.mkw.me.uk/beebem/BeebEm403.zip

Dave

User avatar
pstnotpd
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby pstnotpd » Sat Mar 04, 2017 12:21 pm

For those who want to try without building, here's the work in progress.

BeebEm415Release.zip
Binary BeebEm 4.15
(312.88 KiB) Downloaded 14 times


Only tested on my W10-64 development machine so use at your own risk! [-o<

Drop the executable in an existing 4.14 installation and start.

If you want to try the ARM7TDMI drop the sprow rom in Userdata before startup. The menu item should then become enabled.

chrisn
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:31 am
Location: UK

Re: Beebem on Github

Postby chrisn » Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:13 pm

I'm making progress putting the BeebEm archive together. I've tested that all the versions I have build correctly. In a couple of cases I had to add some missing files, but nothing major. Next I'll add the files to git with a .gitattributes file to handle line endings properly.

For the archive to be as complete as possible, does anyone have the following versions: 4.11, 4.01, 4.0, 3.85, 3.84, 3.83, 3.81, 3.80, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.11, 3.1, 2.3, 2.1, 1.5, 1.01, 0.5, 0.41? Some of these could be reconstructed from the fesh0r repository, but I'd prefer to have the original zip files if possible. Thanks!

pstnotpd wrote:IMHO properly also means Mike Wyatt's and Dave Gilbert's concent....

I agree. I've emailed Mike Wyatt to see if he's OK with what we're doing.


Return to “projects”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest