Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 20:34:49 -0500 From: Thomas David Rivers <ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com> To: FreeBSD-hackers@wcarchive.cdrom.com, pechter@stars.sed.monmouth.army.mil, ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com Subject: Re: Patch for gnu/libexec/uucp Message-ID: <199502270134.UAA00560@ponds.UUCP>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > There was a heavy discussion where we decided (for several reasons, > > some as Frank has written) that it's best to configure things > > in using the Taylor ways. > > > > I reluctantly agreed, and that's how it's been since then. > > > > I therefor suggest that this has already been discussed and decided, > > and I (as yet) don't see anything different now vs. then, and thus, > > we can stick with our previous decision. > > > > - Dave Rivers - > > > > Dave -- I argued against this in 1.1 for the simple reason that most > commercial admin manuals cover HDB or V2 uucp and no one does Taylor. > (Has O'Reilly updated the UUCP book to cover Taylor ? ) > > Bill Sorry to bring this up again (I've been away from the list for about 3 weeks - I'm currently 1700 message behind (again :-( ) ). Anyway, I held the same opinion - that the commercial texts documented HDB really well, so why not go with that. I _believe_ the counter argument was that Taylor config files allow for a finer granularity on some settings, and thus; better control. Also, people pointed out that the taylor config was quite well documented in the texinfo files that come with Taylor uucp (if I'm recalling all of this correctly.) If anyone cares to re-examine this, I'd be in favor of an HDB approach. If a BSD-bigot from way back wants to consider it, we could probably adopt the L.sys files as well. :-) - Dave Rivers -
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199502270134.UAA00560>