🚀 go-pugleaf

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