Bunbatch missing: remove or add it?

Russ Allbery rra at stanford.edu
Sat Aug 4 17:54:40 UTC 2007

Julien ÉLIE <julien at trigofacile.com> writes:

> There is currently two batch processors: c7unbatch and gunbatch.  But
> there is also a mention of bunbatch in inncheck (which checks the
> presence of bunbatch) and in send-uucp.in:

> my %UNBATCHER = (
>     compress    => 'cunbatch',
>     bzip2       => 'bunbatch',
>     gzip        => 'gunbatch',
> );

> I have two questions:

> * does it currently work with cunbatch here, instead of c7unbatch?

> * should bunbatch be removed everywhere, or simply added?
>   (exec <path-to-bzip2> -d -c)

Ideally, it would be nice if a UUCP user could comment on this, since I
really don't know what they use and how.  Note, though, that there isn't a
one-to-one correspondance between the unbatcher names (which go on the #!
line of batches) and programs provided by INN.  For example, rnews handles
cunbatch internally and only tries to run an external program if the
unbatcher is something else.  c7unbatch is a weird legacy thing used for
links that aren't 8-bit clean and probably isn't very important any more.

My guess is that the right solution is to add a bunbatch script similar to
the existing gunbatch one.

Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
     <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.

More information about the inn-workers mailing list