[TUHS] 2.11BSD mirror

[TUHS] 2.11BSD mirror

[Warren Toomey]

Hi all, I've been in contact with Steven Schultz and I've set up a
mirror of his 2.11BSD patches at:

http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/2.11BSD/Patches/

I have no "git fu", but it would be nice to have a Git repository
with all the sources fully patched. Oh, and new boot tapes :-)
I should ask Santa for it.

Cheers, Warren

[TUHS] 2.11BSD mirror

[Lars Brinkhoff]

> Hi all, I've been in contact with Steven Schultz and I've set up a
> mirror of his 2.11BSD patches
>
> I have no "git fu", but it would be nice to have a Git repository
> with all the sources fully patched. Oh, and new boot tapes :-)
> I should ask Santa for it.

I was kinda planning to retrofit all 2BSD releases and the 2.11 patch
series into a git repository.  But I only got as far as collecting the
some of the inputs:

https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/2bsd

Pull requests are welcome!  In particular, are there more releases
between 2BSD and 2.8BSD?

(WARNING: this repository WILL be mercilessly force pushed.)

[TUHS] 2.11BSD mirror

[Warren Toomey]

2.79BSD here: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/

I think I've asked before: why did the numbering go from 2BSD to 2.79BSD?

Cheers, Warren

On 14 December 2015 8:30:40 pm AEST, Lars Brinkhoff <lars at nocrew.org> wrote:
>> Hi all, I've been in contact with Steven Schultz and I've set up a
>> mirror of his 2.11BSD patches
>>
>> I have no "git fu", but it would be nice to have a Git repository
>> with all the sources fully patched. Oh, and new boot tapes :-)
>> I should ask Santa for it.
>
>I was kinda planning to retrofit all 2BSD releases and the 2.11 patch
>series into a git repository.  But I only got as far as collecting the
>some of the inputs:
>
>https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/2bsd
>
>Pull requests are welcome!  In particular, are there more releases
>between 2BSD and 2.8BSD?
>
>(WARNING: this repository WILL be mercilessly force pushed.)

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20151214/bf698d55/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 2.11BSD mirror

[Jacob Goense]

On 2015-12-14 12:01, Warren Toomey wrote:
> 2.79BSD here: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/

Is there a pristine copy of 2.11BSD as well? The archived one is at 
patch 431.

[TUHS] 2.11BSD mirror

[Warren Toomey]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:02:19AM +0100, Jacob Goense wrote:
> On 2015-12-14 12:01, Warren Toomey wrote:
> >2.79BSD here: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/
> 
> Is there a pristine copy of 2.11BSD as well? The archived one is at patch
> 431.

By pristine, do you mean a bootable tape with all the patches applied?
There isn't one. But it would be nice if someone made such a tape!

Cheers, Warren

[TUHS] 2.11BSD mirror

[Jacob Goense]

On 2015-12-16 01:19, Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:02:19AM +0100, Jacob Goense wrote:
>> On 2015-12-14 12:01, Warren Toomey wrote:
>> >2.79BSD here: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/
>> 
>> Is there a pristine copy of 2.11BSD as well? The archived one is at 
>> patch
>> 431.
> 
> By pristine, do you mean a bootable tape with all the patches applied?
> There isn't one. But it would be nice if someone made such a tape!

I actually mean one with none of the patches. What fun is a git repo if
only the last 17 patch sets are in it?

[TUHS] 2.11BSD mirror

[arnold]

Jacob Goense <dugo at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> On 2015-12-16 01:19, Warren Toomey wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:02:19AM +0100, Jacob Goense wrote:
> >> On 2015-12-14 12:01, Warren Toomey wrote:
> >> >2.79BSD here: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/
> >> 
> >> Is there a pristine copy of 2.11BSD as well? The archived one is at 
> >> patch
> >> 431.
> > 
> > By pristine, do you mean a bootable tape with all the patches applied?
> > There isn't one. But it would be nice if someone made such a tape!
>
> I actually mean one with none of the patches. What fun is a git repo if
> only the last 17 patch sets are in it?

You could always use patch -R to reverse the patches to get back to
the original. (Yes, I'm joking.)

Arnold

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Warren Toomey]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:02:19AM +0100, Jacob Goense wrote:
> Is there a pristine copy of 2.11BSD as well? The archived one is at patch
> 431.

I heard from Steven Schultz. He says that there was never a version
control repository for 2.11BSD, so yes someone would have to patch -R
to get back to the pristine version with no patches.

I'm still trying to work out if I'm foolish/stubborn enough to try
doing it myself :-)

Cheers, Warren

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Warner Losh]

Is there a directory of 431 patches somewhere? :)

I'm guessing the answer is no, but I thought I'd ask the obvious question.

Warner


On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:02:19AM +0100, Jacob Goense wrote:
> > Is there a pristine copy of 2.11BSD as well? The archived one is at patch
> > 431.
>
> I heard from Steven Schultz. He says that there was never a version
> control repository for 2.11BSD, so yes someone would have to patch -R
> to get back to the pristine version with no patches.
>
> I'm still trying to work out if I'm foolish/stubborn enough to try
> doing it myself :-)
>
> Cheers, Warren
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20151217/f1f4951e/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Mary Ann Horton]

I sent out the 2.11 tapes at one point.  We just shipped out whatever we 
had in the latest package build.  No version control. So I wouldn't call 
them patches, more like new subversions.

So the question might be, does anyone have a really old 2.11 tape? It 
would have to be from around 1980.  I did not save a 2.11 in my collection.

On 12/17/2015 02:43 PM, Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:02:19AM +0100, Jacob Goense wrote:
>> Is there a pristine copy of 2.11BSD as well? The archived one is at patch
>> 431.
> I heard from Steven Schultz. He says that there was never a version
> control repository for 2.11BSD, so yes someone would have to patch -R
> to get back to the pristine version with no patches.
>
> I'm still trying to work out if I'm foolish/stubborn enough to try
> doing it myself :-)
>
> Cheers, Warren
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Random832]

Warner Losh  writes:
> Is there a directory of 431 patches somewhere? :)

They all seem to be there on the FTP. I *think* they're all context
diffs, too, so reversing should be possible.

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1143 bytes --]

Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> writes:

> I heard from Steven Schultz. He says that there was never a version
> control repository for 2.11BSD, so yes someone would have to patch -R
> to get back to the pristine version with no patches.

That's not going to be easy.  Some of the patch level transitions
involve removing old source files.  Of course, if one is lucky, the
files that got removed along the way will turn out to have been created
at some earlier transition...  Quite the puzzle to figure out, anyway.

Going the other way, one might start with a 2.10 source kit.  Of course,
it is known that the initial 2.11 was 2.10 plus a lost set of changes,
but with luck, it might turn out that the files that cannot be traced
backward from current 2.11 can, in fact, be traced forward from 2.10
using 2.11 patches.

So working backward, while regenerating individual removed or
overwritten files by patching them forward from 2.10, *might* succeed.

I'm almost tempted to bring the necessary data when we go to our
mountain cabin for New Year's...  :)

-tih
-- 
Elections cannot be allowed to change anything.  --Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 417 bytes --]

Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:02:19AM +0100, Jacob Goense wrote:
>> Is there a pristine copy of 2.11BSD as well? The archived one is at patch
>> 431.

Incidentally, I have a kit from Steven here that's at patch level 195.
That's more than half way back, if one were to start 'patch -R'-ing.

-tih
-- 
Elections cannot be allowed to change anything.  --Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 408 bytes --]

Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih at hamartun.priv.no> writes:

> Incidentally, I have a kit from Steven here that's at patch level 195.
> That's more than half way back, if one were to start 'patch -R'-ing.

...and the requests for it have already started flowing in.  :)
It's at https://www.hamartun.priv.no/tih/2.11BSD-pl195.tar

-tih
-- 
Elections cannot be allowed to change anything.  --Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Jeremy C. Reed]

Maybe USENIX has archives?  They handled the orders for Bostic and 
Leedom's 2.10 and 2.10.1, and Schultz's 2.11BSD release (of July 1987, 
March 1989, and January 1991).

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Warren Toomey]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:02:48AM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> Maybe USENIX has archives?  They handled the orders for Bostic and 
> Leedom's 2.10 and 2.10.1, and Schultz's 2.11BSD release (of July 1987, 
> March 1989, and January 1991).

I've just added Tom Ivar Helbekkmo's version of 2.11BSD into the Unix Archive
at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/2.11BSD-pl195.tar

If someone can find an earlier version then I'd also be happy to add it
to the collection.

Cheers & thanks Tom, Warren

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 422 bytes --]

I wrote:

> So working backward, while regenerating individual removed or
> overwritten files by patching them forward from 2.10, *might* succeed.

For what it's worth, I've begun.  So far, I've worked backward from
patchlevel 195 to 177.  I've had to patch files forward from 2.10.1 a
couple of times, and that's gone without a hitch.

-tih
-- 
Elections cannot be allowed to change anything.  --Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 697 bytes --]

I wrote:

> For what it's worth, I've begun.  So far, I've worked backward from
> patchlevel 195 to 177.  I've had to patch files forward from 2.10.1 a
> couple of times, and that's gone without a hitch.

Ran into trouble with patch 141.  The /usr/src/bin/ld.c file from 2.10.1
is too old; patches from between that and the initial 2.11 are missing,
and the file gets deleted and replaced at a later level of 2.11 patches,
breaking the history.  Patch 141 uncovers the problem.

I can make the patches work, of course - but it means that for much of
the resulting 2.11 history, /usr/src/bin/ld.c will be wrong.

-tih
-- 
Elections cannot be allowed to change anything.  --Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Jacob Ritorto]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1301 bytes --]

My $0.02:  Stop at exactly where you know it's still completely clean and
document well (i.e. this email copied into a README somewhere with the
distro) what's blocking you.  If you proceed with force, it maligns the
goal, here, which was stated as "pristine."  Many, many thanks for the push
this far, however!

--jake


On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih at hamartun.priv.no>
wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, I've begun.  So far, I've worked backward from
> > patchlevel 195 to 177.  I've had to patch files forward from 2.10.1 a
> > couple of times, and that's gone without a hitch.
>
> Ran into trouble with patch 141.  The /usr/src/bin/ld.c file from 2.10.1
> is too old; patches from between that and the initial 2.11 are missing,
> and the file gets deleted and replaced at a later level of 2.11 patches,
> breaking the history.  Patch 141 uncovers the problem.
>
> I can make the patches work, of course - but it means that for much of
> the resulting 2.11 history, /usr/src/bin/ld.c will be wrong.
>
> -tih
> --
> Elections cannot be allowed to change anything.  --Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20151219/46b0b44a/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Random832]

Jacob Ritorto writes:
> My $0.02: Stop at exactly where you know it's still completely clean
> and document well (i.e. this email copied into a README somewhere with
> the distro) what's blocking you. If you proceed with force, it maligns
> the goal, here, which was stated as "pristine." Many, many thanks for
> the push this far, however!

Maybe that's one goal, but a pristine copy could just as well be a means
to a different end - e.g. being able to do a "git annotate" on any file
to see what changes were made when.

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Jacob Ritorto]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe that's one goal, but a pristine copy could just as well be a means
> to a different end - e.g. being able to do a "git annotate" on any file
> to see what changes were made when.
>

Good point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20151220/0b06c9c5/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Jacob Goense]

On 2015-12-19 23:44, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> Ran into trouble with patch 141.  The /usr/src/bin/ld.c file from 
> 2.10.1
> is too old; patches from between that and the initial 2.11 are missing,
> and the file gets deleted and replaced at a later level of 2.11 
> patches,
> breaking the history.  Patch 141 uncovers the problem.

Grepping through the utzoo USENET archive I found one patch that might
help piecing this together. Post at http://oldbsd.org/c.b.2bsd.167.txt

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]

Jacob Goense <dugo at xs4all.nl> writes:

> Grepping through the utzoo USENET archive I found one patch that might
> help piecing this together. Post at http://oldbsd.org/c.b.2bsd.167.txt

I found that one in Google's archive of comp.bugs.2bsd, too -- but
there's a least one ld.c patch still missing, from November 1990.

I just heard from Steven Schultz, who is surprised that we don't have
the original 2.11 distribution in the archive.  Steven says:

> 	I was certain that a base 2.11 is in the TUHS archive.   There was a
> 	tapeset sent down under and I recall someone working on a way to 
> 	simulate a tape drive over a serial line so 2.11 could be loaded.

Does this ring a bell, anyone?

-tih
-- 
Elections cannot be allowed to change anything.  --Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Jacob Goense]

On 2015-12-21 10:19, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> I just heard from Steven Schultz, who is surprised that we don't have
> the original 2.11 distribution in the archive.  Steven says:
> 
>> 	I was certain that a base 2.11 is in the TUHS archive.   There was a
>> 	tapeset sent down under and I recall someone working on a way to
>> 	simulate a tape drive over a serial line so 2.11 could be loaded.
> 
> Does this ring a bell, anyone?

 From the PUPS mailing list archives:

===== cut =====
Received: from dolphin by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.6.8/8.3) with SMTP id 
JAA00214; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:19:40 +1100
Received: by dolphin (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA13088; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:19:42 +1100
 From: wkt at dolphin.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey)
Message-Id: <9511202219.AA13088 at dolphin>
Subject: Re: mknod device numbers
To: Milo.Velimirovic at uwlax.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:19:41 +1100 (EST)
Cc: oldunix at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
In-Reply-To: <9511151722.AA02396 at fingers.acs.uwlax.edu> from "Milo 
Velimirovic 31 Wing 785-8030" at Nov 15, 95 11:22:22 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text

In atricle by Milo Velimirovic 31 Wing 785-8030:
> 
> BTW, is there anywhere one can get a "legal license" to run V6, V7, 
> 2.XBSD on
> my pdp11/34's and 11/44?

Nobody, not even Dennis Ritchie, knows how to get a license for any of 
these.
Hopefully, when the Unix source finishes its current migration to SCO 
and HP,
we can ask them for an answer.

P.S Back from holidays, the machine minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au died (out of 
swap)
on Saturday, and I've just rebooted her, so the mailing list is back up.
I've also moved 2.11BSD into the ftp archive on henry.cs.adfa.oz.au. 
Thanks
to Steven Schultz for the copy.

Cheers,
	Warren
===== cut =====

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2015-Dec-21 15:06:21 +0100, Jacob Goense <dugo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>On 2015-12-21 10:19, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
>> I just heard from Steven Schultz, who is surprised that we don't have
>> the original 2.11 distribution in the archive.  Steven says:
>> 
>>> 	I was certain that a base 2.11 is in the TUHS archive.   There was a
>>> 	tapeset sent down under and I recall someone working on a way to
>>> 	simulate a tape drive over a serial line so 2.11 could be loaded.
>> 
>> Does this ring a bell, anyone?
>
> From the PUPS mailing list archives:
> From: wkt at dolphin.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey)
>Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:19:41 +1100 (EST)
...
>I've also moved 2.11BSD into the ftp archive on henry.cs.adfa.oz.au. 

There are several copies of 2.11BSD in the TUHS archives, the oldest appears
to be http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Boot_Images/2.11_on_rl02/ but
it's at patch level 303.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20151222/9408b222/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Jacob Goense]

On 2015-12-21 20:05, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2015-Dec-21 15:06:21 +0100, Jacob Goense <dugo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 2015-12-21 10:19, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
>>> I just heard from Steven Schultz, who is surprised that we don't have
>>> the original 2.11 distribution in the archive.  Steven says:
>>> 
>>>> 	I was certain that a base 2.11 is in the TUHS archive.   There was 
>>>> a
>>>> 	tapeset sent down under and I recall someone working on a way to
>>>> 	simulate a tape drive over a serial line so 2.11 could be loaded.
>>> 
>>> Does this ring a bell, anyone?
>> 
>> From the PUPS mailing list archives:
>> From: wkt at dolphin.cs.adfa.oz.au (Warren Toomey)
>> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:19:41 +1100 (EST)
> ...
>> I've also moved 2.11BSD into the ftp archive on henry.cs.adfa.oz.au.
> 
> There are several copies of 2.11BSD in the TUHS archives, the oldest 
> appears
> to be http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Boot_Images/2.11_on_rl02/ but
> it's at patch level 303.

There was at least one older set in the archives.

http://minnie.tuhs.org/PUPS/archive_details.html mentions:

     2.11BSD
     -------

     This is a complete distribution of 2.11BSD up to patch level 277, 
sent in
     by Steven Schultz. The distribution includes the tape bootstrappers.

Patch 277 was from around Oct 28 1995, which closely matches Warren's 
post.

A late 1992 USENET post from Schultz regarding corrupt files in the
base 2.11BSD master tapes doesn't give me the idea they were real 
keepers.
Post at http://oldbsd.org/c.b.2bsd.10ccd2.txt

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Warren Toomey]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:30:48PM +0100, Jacob Goense wrote:
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/PUPS/archive_details.html mentions:
>     2.11BSD
>     This is a complete distribution of 2.11BSD up to patch level 277

I found it on my old backups. I've put it back into the Unix Archive at:

http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/2.11BSD_patch277/

Thanks Jacob for digging up the old details.

Cheers, Warren

[TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD

[Dave Horsfall]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Jacob Goense wrote:

> > Does this ring a bell, anyone?
> 
> From the PUPS mailing list archives:
> 
> ===== cut =====
> Received: from dolphin by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.6.8/8.3) with SMTP id
> JAA00214; Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:19:40 +1100

Blimey, but that goes back a bit...

(For the young'uns here, PUPS (PDP Users Preservation Society) predates TUHS.)

-- 
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."