TID: Mystic BBS 1.12 A48   
   MSGID: 3:770/100 338e3cc4   
   REPLY: 3:770/100 9bc46546   
   TZUTC: 1300   
   Welcome back, hope you're doing well.   
      
   Just copying this post I sent you last year, not sure if you saw it / there   
   is/was any issues with the 64 bit build but just wanted to spotlight this   
   should you be doing any checking/work on Mystic in the coming period.   
      
   Also do you envisage a release of A49 in the coming months? If yes, I going to   
   hold off any any video updates until after that's out.   
      
   On 30 May 2024 at 09:55p, Paul Hayton pondered and said...   
       
    PH> On 29 May 2024 at 10:12p, g00r00 pondered and said...   
    PH>     
    PH>  g0> This shoud be fixed in the latest prealpha build but still would of   
    PH>  g0> course be mostly untested.   
    PH>    
    PH> Hi there.   
    PH>    
    PH> Just a note that I tried the 32bit RPi build installer and it failed to   
    PH> allow me to install to /mystic/ from the root directory. I tried the   
    PH> sudo ./install option and that did not work either. Just hit the unable   
    PH> to create /mystic/ message.   
    PH>    
    PH> If I opted for F5 use home directory it showed me the root path of   
    PH> /root/mystic  so I can confirm I was acting with root privileges when I   
    PH> invoked sudo but hit the above mentioned problem.   
    PH>    
    PH> Also during an earlier test on the last 64 bit build I found I was having   
    PH> problems using 'mis poll 21:1/100' when I set up 21:1/100 as a BinkP   
    PH> echomail node in Mystic.   
    PH>    
    PH> For whatever reason it looked like mis was polling out to the BinkP   
    PH> server but the receiving system on another machine on my LAN did not see   
    PH> any incoming connection from MIS on the Rpi..   
    PH>    
    PH> So just flagging there *may* be something in the Rpi code that *might*   
    PH> be amiss when 'mis poll' is calling a binkP style echomail node?   
    PH>    
    PH> Another thing I spotted in the mutil.ini there's a reference in   
    PH> whatsnew.txt to the new function EchoUnlink.   
    PH>    
    PH> ; exclude=MYSTIC   
    PH> ; exclude=FSX_*   
    PH>    
    PH> But the reason I mention this because I wanted to let you know that   
    PH> you've omitted the function call at the top of the mutil.ini    
    PH>    
    PH> ; EchoUnlink    = false    
    PH>    
    PH> [time passes]   
    PH>    
    PH> I also ran a test using the exclude=FSX_* but have found it does not   
    PH> honour the switch, the reports I am generating 'action_mode=0' are still   
    PH> flagging fsxNet bases that should be excluded.  So something is may be   
    PH> up there also.   
    PH>    
    PH> I ran the function from mutil directly using   ./mutil -run EcoUnlink    
    PH>    
    PH> Best, Paul   
    PH>    
      
   Kerr Avon [Blake's 7] 'I'm not expendable, I'm not stupid and I'm not going'   
   avon[at]bbs.nz | bbs.nz | fsxnet.nz    
      
   --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)   
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)   
   SEEN-BY: 103/705 105/81 106/201 124/5016 128/187 129/305 153/757 7715   
   SEEN-BY: 154/10 30 110 203/0 218/700 840 220/70 221/0 226/17 30 100   
   SEEN-BY: 227/114 229/110 111 114 206 300 307 317 400 426 428 470 550   
   SEEN-BY: 229/664 700 705 240/1120 5832 266/512 267/800 280/464 5003   
   SEEN-BY: 280/5006 291/111 292/854 8125 301/1 320/219 322/757 341/66   
   SEEN-BY: 341/234 342/200 396/45 423/120 460/58 256 1124 467/888 633/280   
   SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/1 3 100 340 772/210 220 230 902/26 5020/400 8912   
   SEEN-BY: 5054/30 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/100 1 280/464 460/58 229/426