Hi Santiago, > I'm curious, though, are there any specifics about the providers on > these POSIX tools/libraries/whatnot (i.e., would it be wortwhile > discussing the alternatives?). Is sh being provided by bash(1)? A more POSIX-compliant shell may be better, one that doesn't let lots of bashisms pass without complaint. dash(1)? And dash doesn't have time as a built-in, so we get to pull in an executable for that too. As for SCCS, it's a handy file format. Better in design that RCS's. And used by other tools over the years, e.g. Bitkeeper, so they do linger on. Plus it's a historical file format, just as ncompress was sought to be more POSIX compliant. -- Cheers, Ralph.
