PE> "Everything needed" includes batch file
PE> with qwk2pkt call, plus the area list table.

RS> Sorry about my lack of mind reading skills. I've kept the same name.

PE> What the fuck have you sent me, Rod?

RS> What you appeared to want.

PE> For starters, I expected a one-line batch file,

RS> Odd, could have SWORN that that line of yours
RS> right at the top says nothing remotely like that.

PE> No, you're meant to figure that out for yourself.

Its utterly impossible to try to work out what YOU want to do,
you are so loony, you will have to SAY what you want instead.

And as can be seen from the stuff above on batch files, even when you DO
say what you want, you dont necessarily want what you say you want anyway.

RS> I dont read minds you know. You appeared to be
RS> asking for the BAT file what was actually used.

PE> The idea is that YOU have to demonstrate that it is a bug in QWK2PKT.

Indeed. Which is why you got a pair of input files, on which produces the
dud PKT and one which does not. With obviously the BAT file which included
the QWK2PKT line so you could see the option switches which were used.

PE> Once you've done that, you send me the stuff required
PE> so that I can see the bug. Then I can debug it.

Easier to say, harder to do. At that stage it appeared that the most
likely problem was a bug in QWK2PKT which was sensitive to something
specific in the MSG file. Because the only difference between the one
which produced a good PKT and the one which did not was the order of
the pair of messages in the MSGs.

Yes, it could be due to anything from the directory structure to the
OS config to even the hardware itself, tho thats well down the list
of possibilitys. So it just aint feasible to send you everything.

And when I did send you JUST the BAT file which contains the QWK2PKT
line actually used, so you could inspect that to see if there was any
other massaging of the PKT itself after it was produced which might
conceivably stuff it up after QWK2PKT had produced it, you chuck a
tantrum and proclaim that you only wanted a one liner, even tho you
said exactly the opposite when you asked for it.

PE> I am not interested in bugs in your batch file,
PE> or forgetting to put in parameters etc etc.

Welp, you should be when you cant reproduce the fault yourself.
Particularly when the documentation for the parameters is very
poor. Its always possible that the problem is due to a
misunderstanding of the detail on one of the parameters etc.

PE> At this stage I don't even KNOW that it's a bug in QWK2PKT.

Yes, but at the stage you were asking for something specific to be
uploaded, that was by far the most likely given that its been in use for
a long time now and has just produced a PKT with a blemish like that, which
is reproducible on MY system with a particular MSG and when it does not do
that with the vast bulk of MSGs and when the blemish is JUST a change to
one specific node address in the PKT and when there isnt anything obviously
special about the particular message which gets that blemish.

PE> I said previously that if you could demonstrate
PE> a bug in QWK2PKT, I would look into it.

I can and did, with a particular pair of MSGs which do rather
clearly demonstrate the problem on MY system. Obviously until
you try them on YOUR system I have no way of knowing if that
problem will be visible on any other system, including yours.

At this stage, primarily because of the detail of the blemish
in the PKT it STILL is by far the most likely possibility that
its some oddity with QWK2PKT, tho that may be just it reacting to
something specific in the rest of the system config wise or something.

PE> not one that I had to debug and guess before I could use it,

RS> Even you should have been able to see the QWK2PKT line
RS> and cut that out and use if if you wanted a one liner.

PE> I had to guess what %1 was used for,

VERY difficult task given that its the input data for QWK2PKT Paul.

PE> then I had to stuff around finding out what input it was expecting.

VERY difficult task given that its the input data for QWK2PKT Paul.

PE> YOU should have cut that one line out.

Soorree, I dont read minds, many prefer to see the BAT file actually
used so they can check stuff like the switches used in the QWK2PKT line.
If you want something different to that, you will have to say so Paul.

PE> and then debug and guess why it couldn't find tenmin.msg
PE> when it turned out it was zipped in .rep instead.

RS> Welp, that cant be done with a one liner, soorree.

PE> YOU SEND ME THE UNZIPPED FILE!!!

I assumed that even you would be able to work out that that REP
contains a single MSG, particularly when thats bog standard QWK stuff.

PE> I am not interested in a bug in your unzip program, I'm not interested
PE> in bugs in your batch file. I only said I would debug QWK2PKT.

So you had the line in the BAT file which contains the QWK2PKT line so
you could check the switches used so you could see the specifics about
how QWK2PKT was being invoke Paul when those PKTs were produced Paul.

PE> Secondly, once I'd wasted my time doing that, it turned
PE> out that there were only two messages in the bad.zip,
PE> and they were being converted successfully anyway, ie
PE> you have NOT SENT ME WHAT I NEED TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM.

RS> Or that that msg produces a dud PKT in SOME circumstances as yet
RS> unresolved Paul. That is not exactly unheard of in computing and
RS> is also a good reason why sending you a one liner which isnt what
RS> is actually used to produce the PKT isnt exactly a terrific idea.

PE> Rod, it is a terrific idea.

Fraid not. And even you should be able to cut
it out of that BAT file if thats what you want.

PE> There is ABSOLUTELY NO DISADVANTAGE in having a one-liner.

PE> Because if you can't reproduce the problem
PE> yourself in a one-liner, I'm not interested.

Welp I can and did, whatever you proclaim
on the one true path to salvation for us all.

PE> It would have been wise to include the executable you are using as well.

RS> I dont read minds. Its easy to see that that is desirable
RS> AFTER we see that you get a different result on your system

(Continued to next message)
@EOT:

---