home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 87 03:58:08 EST
-
- > From: <gwyn@brl> (Doug Gwyn)
- > >From: hoptoad!gnu@lll-crg.arpa (John Gilmore)
- > >... Is it going to be possible to sell a
- > >POSIX system without UUCP? Ditto for "mail"...
- >
- > I don't see why these should be mandated when many sites use
- > superior facilities in their place. Ditto for the spooler.
-
- Yes, and some of us with ARPA access refuse to believe UUCP exists.
-
- > >I suggest that "cpio" be excluded. Maybe they'll stop distributing
- > >System V on byte-order-dependent cpio tapes if it becomes non-standard.
- >
- > SVR2.0 was distributed on portable-header cpio tapes.
- > This is also true of the SVR3.0 source distribution.
-
- I can live with cpio as a replacement for tar, altho I would always force
- the -c option.
-
- > >I can't find "dircmp", "id", and a bunch of others in either V7 or 4.2
- > >so I suspect it is not very portable to assume their existence.
- >
- > You also can't find a decent Bourne shell in those releases.
- > The standard should not be weakened unduly to permit existing
- > inadequate facilities to be advertised as already conforming!
-
- It works both ways. You also can't find a `diff -r' in TPC UNIX.
- Who needs `dircmp'? As for shells, does TPC even use Bourne's anymore?
- Isn't Korn's upward compatible? So do we mandate Korn's?
-
- All in all, I find this effort biased too much towards TPC and away from BSD.
- If we are to do that, I would rather start with V7 as a base rather than SV.
- Most UNIXen are derived from V7. Let's keep the standard that way too.
-
- (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa>
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 9, Number 21
-
-