* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-17 22:43 ` [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD Warren Toomey
@ 2015-12-17 22:45 ` Warner Losh
2015-12-18 2:49 ` Random832
2015-12-18 0:34 ` Mary Ann Horton
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2015-12-17 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-17 22:43 ` [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD Warren Toomey
2015-12-17 22:45 ` Warner Losh
@ 2015-12-18 0:34 ` Mary Ann Horton
2015-12-18 14:02 ` Jeremy C. Reed
2015-12-18 11:04 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
2015-12-18 13:27 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Mary Ann Horton @ 2015-12-18 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-17 22:43 ` [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD Warren Toomey
2015-12-17 22:45 ` Warner Losh
2015-12-18 0:34 ` Mary Ann Horton
@ 2015-12-18 11:04 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
2015-12-19 14:16 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
2015-12-18 13:27 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo @ 2015-12-18 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-18 11:04 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
@ 2015-12-19 14:16 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
2015-12-19 22:44 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo @ 2015-12-19 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-19 14:16 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
@ 2015-12-19 22:44 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
2015-12-19 23:55 ` Jacob Ritorto
2015-12-20 21:37 ` Jacob Goense
0 siblings, 2 replies; 28+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo @ 2015-12-19 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-19 22:44 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
@ 2015-12-19 23:55 ` Jacob Ritorto
2015-12-20 2:41 ` Random832
2015-12-20 21:37 ` Jacob Goense
1 sibling, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Ritorto @ 2015-12-19 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- 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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-19 23:55 ` Jacob Ritorto
@ 2015-12-20 2:41 ` Random832
2015-12-20 12:12 ` Jacob Ritorto
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Random832 @ 2015-12-20 2:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-19 22:44 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
2015-12-19 23:55 ` Jacob Ritorto
@ 2015-12-20 21:37 ` Jacob Goense
2015-12-21 9:19 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Goense @ 2015-12-20 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-20 21:37 ` Jacob Goense
@ 2015-12-21 9:19 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
2015-12-21 14:06 ` Jacob Goense
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo @ 2015-12-21 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-21 9:19 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
@ 2015-12-21 14:06 ` Jacob Goense
2015-12-21 19:05 ` Peter Jeremy
2015-12-22 21:12 ` Dave Horsfall
0 siblings, 2 replies; 28+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Goense @ 2015-12-21 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
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 =====
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-21 14:06 ` Jacob Goense
@ 2015-12-21 19:05 ` Peter Jeremy
2015-12-21 22:30 ` Jacob Goense
2015-12-22 21:12 ` Dave Horsfall
1 sibling, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Peter Jeremy @ 2015-12-21 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-21 19:05 ` Peter Jeremy
@ 2015-12-21 22:30 ` Jacob Goense
2015-12-22 0:44 ` Warren Toomey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Goense @ 2015-12-21 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-21 14:06 ` Jacob Goense
2015-12-21 19:05 ` Peter Jeremy
@ 2015-12-22 21:12 ` Dave Horsfall
1 sibling, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread
From: Dave Horsfall @ 2015-12-22 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
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."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD
2015-12-17 22:43 ` [TUHS] Pristine version of 2.11BSD Warren Toomey
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-12-18 11:04 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
@ 2015-12-18 13:27 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
2015-12-18 13:50 ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo @ 2015-12-18 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread