[TUHS] 4.0 BSD confusion....

[TUHS] 4.0 BSD confusion....

[Jason Stevens]

I was looking at Tom Yam's 4.0 BSD 'starunix' restoration project, and I had
a question about the version number that is reported vs the dates... I'm
using wikipedia as a source (I know I know..)

Anyways Tom's 4.0 boots up like this:

: hp(0,0)vmunix
87844+15464+130300 start 0x530
VM/UNIX (Berkeley Version 4.1) 11/10/80

But the wiki page lists 4.1 being from June of 1981, and 4.0 being from
November of 1980..  Did 4.0 BSD ship reporting itself as 4.1?  I guess there
is the possibility that the kernel may include patches to bring it up to
4.1?

Does anyone have tape dumps of 4.0 & 4.1 ...?

I did find some iso image that has various levels of BSD but they are not in
tape dumps but rather extracted to the filesystem.. the 4.0 & 4.1 from there
seem identical  Or at a minimum they use the same kernel that reports itself
as 4.1 ...

Anyways I'm just wondering....

Jason Stevens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110829/388d110b/attachment.html>

[TUHS] 4.0 BSD confusion....

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Monday, 29 August 2011 at 17:16:37 -0400, Jason Stevens wrote:
> I was looking at Tom Yam's 4.0 BSD 'starunix' restoration project, and I had
> a question about the version number that is reported vs the dates... I'm
> using wikipedia as a source (I know I know..)
>
> Anyways Tom's 4.0 boots up like this:
>
> : hp(0,0)vmunix
> 87844+15464+130300 start 0x530
> VM/UNIX (Berkeley Version 4.1) 11/10/80
>
> But the wiki page lists 4.1 being from June of 1981, and 4.0 being from
> November of 1980..  Did 4.0 BSD ship reporting itself as 4.1?  I guess there
> is the possibility that the kernel may include patches to bring it up to
> 4.1?

Interesting.  I've taken a look at the sources from the CD set and
found that the text there (in /usr/src/sys/sys/machdep.c) is the same
as above.  Looking further, the entire directory has the same files in
4.0 and 4.1, with the same modification dates.  So it looks as the 4.0
sources accidentally got replaced by the 4.1 sources.

> Does anyone have tape dumps of 4.0 & 4.1 ...?

mckusick might.  I'm copying him.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer
Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft MUA reports
problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110830/ffab1f72/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] 4.0 BSD confusion....

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

>> : hp(0,0)vmunix
>> 87844+15464+130300 start 0x530
>> VM/UNIX (Berkeley Version 4.1) 11/10/80
>> 
>> But the wiki page lists 4.1 being from June of 1981, and 4.0 being from
>> November of 1980..  Did 4.0 BSD ship reporting itself as 4.1?  I guess there
>> is the possibility that the kernel may include patches to bring it up to
>> 4.1?
> 

I did a bit of digging in the SCCS files on disk 4 of the CD-ROM set.  That '4.1' version string was hardwired into vax/vax/machdep.c on November 10, 1980, as delta 4.1.  The logs for Locore.c show a commit on November 9, also with delta 4.1, with the comment 'version 4.1 for distrib'.

[TUHS] 4.0 BSD confusion....

[Jeremy C. Reed]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

> >>From the start if the SCCS history (April 9, 1980 ) through May 17, 
> >>machdep.c identified the system as version 3.1. Delta 3.6 (May 18) 
> >>changed the version string to be the SCCS delta of machdep.c, thus 
> >>the version number jumped from 3.1 to 3.6.  The version appears to 
> >>have tracked the machdep.c delta until Nov 10 when it was hardwired 
> >>to '4.1'. (I say appears because I didn't take the time to examine 
> >>all 27 deltas between 3.6 and 4.1.)

Yes. I saw the same, such as 3.6 to 4.1 (nothing between):

-char   version[] = "VM/UNIX (Berkeley Version %I%) %H% \n";
+char   version[] = "VM/UNIX (Berkeley Version %I%) %G% \n";
 
3.6     char    version[] = "VM/UNIX (Berkeley Version 3.34) 08/31/11 \n";
(That is today's date per %H%.)

4.1     char    version[] = "VM/UNIX (Berkeley Version 4.1) 11/10/80 \n";
 
D 4.1 80/11/10 15:25:31 bill 42 35      00033/00011/00386

D 3.34 80/10/22 09:34:05 bill 35 34     00001/00001/00396

> After a cursory search I can't find any SCCS log references to a 4.0 
> release.

But search for "stamp for 4bsd" for example.  This happened from:

D 4.1 80/11/09 16:29:06 bill 5 4        00000/00000/00094
 to
D 4.1 80/11/09 17:02:39 bill 2 1        00000/00000/00016

The previous sccs timestamps are from:

D 3.2 80/06/07 02:45:12 bill 2 1        00001/00001/00044
  to
D 3.29 80/11/09 16:07:34 bill 29 28     00015/00086/00749

This seems to imply that the concept of 4.0 never existed in the source 
tree.  Then again, as far as I see, the SCCS didn't support or use .0 as 
a revision.

This still doesn't explain why all the source files other than libpc are 
same from 4.0bsd and 4.1bsd in the archives.

(I had noticed this same problem a year ago at least.)

If someone has their own 4.0BSD archive please check if different.

[TUHS] 4.0 BSD confusion....

[Keith Bostic]

> > Interesting.  I've taken a look at the sources from the CD set and

> found that the text there (in /usr/src/sys/sys/machdep.c) is the same
> > as above.  Looking further, the entire directory has the same files in
> > 4.0 and 4.1, with the same modification dates.  So it looks as the 4.0
> > sources accidentally got replaced by the 4.1 sources.
>

Hmmm, no, I don't have anything useful to add.

I suspect you could check the modification dates on the files, and the file
SCCS IDs, against the source-code revision logs to figure this out for sure.

--keith

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Keith Bostic
keith at bostic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20110908/31417e82/attachment.html>