Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!mit-eddi!smh From: smh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Steven M. Haflich) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: osh Message-ID: <248@mit-eddi.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Jun-83 09:27:47 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.248 Posted: Thu Jun 16 09:27:47 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Jun-83 22:59:33 EDT References: burl.177 Lines: 49 Curtis Jackson hits the nail right on the thumb with his remarks about naming old versions of programs. His example was that nroff1, nroff2.4, etc. should be used very infrequently anyway, since everyone should be converting over to the new nroff. Really? Which "new nroff?" The original one (the one that replaced roff)? The one that came out around the same time as Unix 6.5-7? The slightly revised version which updates that one? Or is there a new one about which I have heard nothing? I find it tremendously difficult to keep track of versions of the various large system programs on Un*x -- system programs here intended to include compilers, *roff, uucp, etc. -- and similar difficulty establishing where a particular version was written, where its support (such as it is) might be centralized, or where distributions can be obtained. (By the way, I am a Unix wizard of 7 years standing, although I have been reading the net only 8 months or so.) For example, recently I became interested in getting ditroff, if possible, but there is no obvious mechanism to determine its source or availability other than nuisance broadcasts to the net. We have a (monthly?) net posting of the list-of-lists summarizing the currently valid newsgroups. This costs the moderator some time, but is of great service to the community. (If only more new users could could be directed to examine it.) How about something similar for "systems" sources, called "net.versions" or whatever? It could summarize the state of the art for each of the several dozen "systems" and include: - The name of the system. - A brief description of what it does, limited to a line or two. - What it runs under. - The (original) authorship/institution. - Derivation from earlier versions. (e.g. nroff9.2 is an enhanced version of nroff9.1 with bug fixes but no new features). - Availability (and licenseing). Most often this would be a simple entry like "distributed with standard 4.1". Otherwise, the site or sites which are willing to distribute could be named, or if an item is already *widely* distributed, one would know to check adjacent sites first. - If appropriate, a central repository for bug fixes. Look at the current mess with uucp and the news system. Who knows how find all the bug fixes for a given version? I can no longer even keep the versions straight. The reason this will never happen, like so many other things, is that it would take too much work for someone. (Probably a good deal more than the list-of-lists mailing.) I am certainly not volunteering, but maybe some other fool will do so, start a list, and solicit updates and corrections.