From scsprong@wit401307.student.utwente.nl  Tue Jun 20 08:47:15 2000
Return-Path: <scsprong@wit401307.student.utwente.nl>
Received: from wit401307.student.utwente.nl (wit401307.student.utwente.nl [130.89.236.147])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCC437C034
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from scsprong@wit401307.student.utwente.nl)
Received: by wit401307.student.utwente.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id A18B5154; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:46:52 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20000620154652.A18B5154@wit401307.student.utwente.nl>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:46:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: s.c.sprong@student.utwente.nl
Sender: scsprong@wit401307.student.utwente.nl
Reply-To: s.c.sprong@student.utwente.nl
To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Correction for man 1 yes 
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.2

>Number:         19401
>Category:       docs
>Synopsis:       Change attribution of the 'yes command'
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    freebsd-doc
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Jun 20 08:50:00 PDT 2000
>Closed-Date:    Tue Jul 18 11:32:14 PDT 2000
>Last-Modified:  Tue Jul 18 11:32:27 PDT 2000
>Originator:     S.C.Sprong
>Release:        FreeBSD 3.4-STABLE i386
>Organization:
FreeBSD Usergroup Drienerlo
>Environment:

All BSD versions to date.

>Description:

A long ranging discussion in alt.folklore.computers from April to June
2000 (`Why is there no "yes" command in Solaris?`) led to the search
for the origin of the 'yes' command.

Quoting from the most relevant posting:

:From: Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com>
:Message-ID: <394F167B.26244ABD@trailing-edge.com>
:Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:00:11 -0400
:Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
:Subject: Re: Why is there no "yes" command in Solaris?
:
:Yet on any V7 distribution tape, you find:
:
:-rwxrwxr-x 3/3            2522 May  5 20:19 1979 bin/yes
:-rw-rw-r-- 3/3              84 Jan 11 07:02 1979 usr/src/cmd/yes.c
:
:And on any 32V distribution tape, you find:
:
:-rwxr-xr-x mhol/wheel     3228 Mar 25 16:56 1979 usr/bin/yes
:-rw-rw-rw- mhol/wheel       84 Nov  6 15:04 1978 usr/src/cmd/yes.c
:
:So 32V and V7 had yes at least a year before it was put in 4BSD.

Searching the source of older Unices in the SCO repository at:

<http://www.sco.com/offers/ancient001/>

confirmed that either 32V, a Version 7 port for the VAX, or Version 7
itself were the first Unices in which 'yes' appeared.

Some BSD attributions refer to the appearance of a feature in any Unix,
others refer to the specific appearance in BSD. The current attribution
for 'yes' refers to 4.0BSD, which in itself is correct.

Yet to end the dispute I request to change the attribution line.

>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:
	change	
   The yes command appeared in 4.0BSD
	to
   The yes command appeared in 32V AT&T Unix
	or
   The yes command appeared in Version 7 AT&T Unix


>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: nik 
State-Changed-When: Tue Jul 18 11:32:14 PDT 2000 
State-Changed-Why:  
Committed, thanks. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=19401 
>Unformatted:
