thanks - tried you thought at R:prompt and got nothing??? what did i do wrong :-)
as for the previous build ... I'm not certain.. we upgraded to 6.5++ and ran patch two when it became available.. but god help me if i know what the build number is. The original structure was designed in v3.1 thanks tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sami Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: hmmm strange happenings > Tom, > > What version of R:BASE were you using before 1.862? > > What happens if you do this: > > 1. OUTPUT structure.txt > 2. UNLOAD STR > 3. OUTPUT SCREEN > > Then edit the resulting structure.txt file and look for the "COMMENT" > statements - are they the correct comments or are they the strange ones? > > I have seen some strange corruption in databases that were originally > created in 4.0 and earlier that, even after many, many RELOADs, have strange > things in the structure file. > > I would run a complete unload of structure and data to rebuild the RB1 file. > > Sami > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Sami Aaron > Software Management Specialists > 19312 W 63rd Terr > Shawnee KS 66218 > 913-915-1971 > http://www.softwaremgmt.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Eldred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:04 AM > Subject: [RBASE-L] - hmmm strange happenings > > > > Good Afternoon everyone... > > > > I have a recent and unusual development here on my end. We are using > 6.55++ > > 1.862xRT03 on Windows 98 across a Netware 6 network and as of this > morning, > > all of the descriptions for tables and columns seem to be some what > > scrambled. > > > > There have been no changes to our data structure or other programming, but > > in the place of the old descriptions are messages such as "#COM_ID=65565" > , > > "#COM_ID=65572" ... and where that message doesn't appear the descriptions > > are randomly mismatched. > > > > I attempted to access the same data from a know to be good back up > > (11-19-02) and I see the same results. Is there an issue with the in-line > > patch 3 and older "legacy" databases or is this a glitch someother > way?.... > > > > any assistance would be greatly appreciated > > > > thanks > > tom > >
