Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!copper!stevesu
From: stevesu@copper.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: Addition to Arthur Olsen/4.3bsd table-driven ctime
Message-ID: <963@copper.TEK.COM>
Date: Mon, 6-Apr-87 04:28:29 EST
Article-I.D.: copper.963
Posted: Mon Apr  6 04:28:29 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Apr-87 02:36:10 EST
References: <948@copper.TEK.COM> <15918@sun.uucp>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 26
Xref: utgpu comp.unix.wizards:1683 comp.bugs.4bsd:276

In article <15918@sun.uucp>, guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
> If you're just a software vendor, leave it alone.  Presumably, you'll
> be building software on a BUBco Boring UNIX Box 1601, to sell to
> people with BUBco Boring UNIX Boxes in the 1600 series...
> The only problem occurs if you build things under 5.0 expecting them
> to work under 4.0.

What I'm worried about is that, for the moment at least, we ship
identical binaries to both Ultrix and 4.[23]bsd sites.  Some of
these binaries are compiled and linked on an Ultrix machine,
others on a 4.2 machine.  In the past, for our particular
applications, this hasn't seemed to make a difference.

(Please, no speeches proving to me why we shouldn't be doing
this.  I, too, can contrive situations in which this policy
could fail.  We'll abandon it when we have to, but for now, it
works and it's convenient.)

In the case of the new & improved ctime, I'm worried because, to
the extent that it's been posted in comp.bugs.4bsd.ucb-fixes, the
new ctime is now in some sense "official" 4.3bsd, but it may or
may not be adopted by any given 4.3 site and it leads to Ultrix
incompatibility.

                                           Steve Summit
                                           stevesu@copper.tek.com