Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ur-tut.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tuba
From: tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.micro
Subject: Re: Binary Compatibility 80286
Message-ID: <201@ur-tut.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 17:21:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ur-tut.201
Posted: Thu Oct 31 17:21:59 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 06:03:24 EST
References: <248@omen.UUCP> <10764@ucbvax.ARPA> <2143@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.unix:6122 net.unix-wizards:15558 net.micro:12555

In article <2143@amdahl.UUCP> andrew@amdahl.UUCP (Andrew Sharpe) writes:
>Uh, excuse me, but Mr. Forsberg neglected the *approved* version
>of UNIX System V/286; the one that has passed port acceptance.

I've always wondered what "approved" and "port acceptance" mean in
practice.  Suppose Alan writes code, Bill ports it to new hardware, Alan
"approves" the port, Bill sells the ported code to Charlie, and Charlie
discovers some behavior of B's ported code that differs from the behavior of
Alan's original code.  Is Alan obliged to fix Bill's code to Charlie's
satisfaction?  If Bill advertises Alan has "approved" his port, is Charlie
entitled to Alan's support as well as Bill's?

-- 

-- Jon Krueger
UUCP:	...seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tuba
BITNET:	TUBA@UORDBV
USMAIL:	University of Rochester
	Taylor Hall
	Rocheseter, NY  14627
	(716) 275-2811
"A Vote for Barry is a Vote for Fun"