🚀 go-pugleaf

mp@allegra.att.com (Mark Plotnick) writes:

>Under SunOS 4.1.1, "uucp x host1!host2!y" generates a command that
>starts with "uux -C".  Is the "-C" really necessary?  We have a user
>here who tried to send out 100 copies of a 6MB file via multi-hop uucp,
>and our disks didn't have anywhere near 600MB of space.  Would it be OK
>if uucp gave uux the -C option only if uucp was itself given the -C
>option?

If you mean that uucp did an exec of "uux -C", then the -C was
certainly not necessary (although on some systems uucp does a -C by
default, so passing -C to uux by default would be correct; I don't
know about SunOS).

However, if you mean that the above uucp command somehow requested a
remote execution of ``uux -C'' on host1, then the -C is definitely
necessary.  If uux on host1 was invoked without -C, then the file
would have to exist somewhere for uux to copy it.  But if that were
the case, who would delete it?

>P.S. has there been any work toward implementing a sort of
>multicasting, in which a single uucp command line can specify that a
>file should be copied to multiple destinations?  In the above case,
>virtually all the 100 copies were being sent to the same "host1", and it
>would be a win to just send the 6MB once and then have host1 execute a
>uucp command to send to the 100 destinations.

This would be fairly straightforward.  You could make
    uucp file --to host1!host3!file1 --to host1!host2!file2
execute the following on host1
    uucp -C file --to host3!file1 --to host2!file2
Of course, the uucp running on host1 would have to recognize the --to
flag.
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
`` `The world can grow into an ordered place where all are equal before
    the law.  And the law is just.  Honest.  Without graft.'
   `Is that so important if you are starving?' ''