From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Aug 30 23:28:41 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id XAA25559
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 23:28:41 -0700
Received: (from sos@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id XAA25550
          ; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 23:28:40 -0700
Message-Id: <199508310628.XAA25550@freefall.FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: What do you think of these patches to echo?
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 23:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <4423.809796220@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Aug 30, 95 08:23:40 am
From: sos@freebsd.org
Reply-to: sos@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1633      
Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

In reply to Jordan K. Hubbard who wrote:
> 
> If you think I'm going to commit this without review, you're
> crazy.. :-)
> 
> Synopsis:
> 	add \c handling to echo (at the end of an arglist, is
> 	synonymous with echo -n ...)
> 
> Why:
> 	We can make ourselves iBCS2 compliant with an LKM, but we
> 	can't do anything about the differing semantics of various
> 	commands.
> 
> 	Fortunately, very few installation shell scripts for SCO
> 	do things like `ps -deaf|..' but they DO do a lot of
> 	`echo "foo bar bar blatt?\c "' sorts of things and
> 	this looks really cheesy when you're installing WordPerfect
>         for SCO or something.

Hmm, if our iBCS" stuff is about to be changed to the NetBSD stuff 
anyways I see absolutely NO reason for this. Just put an echo
that has this in it in /compat/SCO/bin/echo (or whatever) and
bingo we have the ability to run SCO shellscripts...
If on the other hand we are not, our current implementation as in
current doesn't allow this (yet, only my copy does to some extent)
and I could live with it for as long as need be.

> 
> Disclaimer:
> 	I don't propose that we change all the commands to be SCO
> 	compliant (heavens!) by any stretch, simply that the change to
> 	this one is innocuous enough that we get good "bang for the
> 	buck" in increasing the quality of our iBCS2 coverage from one
> 	very small change.

Ahem, next time it will be easier yet, then we have presedence :)


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Soren Schmidt  (sos@FreeBSD.org | sos@login.dknet.dk)  FreeBSD Core Team
               So much code to hack -- so little time