From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 395a919f for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 20:33:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E5C4B94BFA; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 06:33:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3967794BEA; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 06:33:22 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="oAoqW5YF"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 925C494BEA; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 06:33:19 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f172.google.com (mail-qk1-f172.google.com [209.85.222.172]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86C8F94BE9 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 06:33:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f172.google.com with SMTP id s26so1561877qkm.10 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bIPmbYRWV+fQqnQ7j63rqEOOSXwOzXcIVlDrxu6anGI=; b=oAoqW5YFLmHGvQm6EsU6Gyt3Ab78r0hx++iVEp66AGe22EuZzNvVbPGIcB7mX3vTUk G2DeJdHhyMbVm8W+JNAeAGGE6fJB3tWcz5WnYU1GrV9zgr+dWCfqe3HTCqbAKAiEI7sy 6m52MxXXj7C4LEzTb/MEnPO/4zLVpd9W2XExV41GFJbWZxbP57gBTo3JwTzv2nNshlrk tDsvZ/GanBTdeXm5g5Vjw2JsQC3Vv3KgkfdF+VuMOayHfkuhrQcvDgFILiMcAn79jnTA yAcOROPm7oDcD3B3GKMGdJbPx2lyNXA4O85Fx+Hvy2LM5x68PfpOo+FP2SPvmJFnFT1B ynxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bIPmbYRWV+fQqnQ7j63rqEOOSXwOzXcIVlDrxu6anGI=; b=UHzPlbYVRzg7s4xag/xib2fp2yItXQw4uhfhjSQg7OkTFtCl9hHG8ll4mRJnMiKajf XMpwZJy2t1MMKiw1lLvpgSgVPEbY0+6sCeVnhSdGXoZrgUPeh7i+mmwg5F1/X0ZDS08G 9rZTrODPhiA3vUbC9nZCqzP4apJZzv36JQdj/LbuPEYJf4BIuHUJsqKpT7v3xeSXDnlx Zk8LfvJyhTSffTTPEzysB49MKuqEaKDRBsbZXeinTJBaswnek57BGTwdK/QmmsBiFClg Tz/llqJB9jh9bkcqhr24rk1k428WOwoJfEiro/zwCDXM9UAlwikOKlSUm8+y9SHtYlfL +Pdw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUV2QJZHR9hAtzoJl2iUwCo/dWGXCyQJ4f3Ueeaf9EB26y3/psf YVlxtlxNm9M1ltPUl3yGbo4IJ3GVxRIdHGZI2mJq0pSCMzQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw9lK9qP4hu9+n6x8GFIcKbURLhzN+aQIg3mzayy5uz1Imtd5C/ETgV5M6RTLVzcLbht4PjzONhSRHCm3hBP/M= X-Received: by 2002:a37:bce:: with SMTP id 197mr2086772qkl.46.1552249997508; Sun, 10 Mar 2019 13:33:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <201903100731.x2A7VZJF033832@ducky.net> <201903100820.x2A8KjsZ029408@freefriends.org> <201903101550.x2AFoaZp036647@ducky.net> <201903101954.x2AJsjL7016848@freefriends.org> In-Reply-To: <201903101954.x2AJsjL7016848@freefriends.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:33:05 -0600 Message-ID: To: arnold@skeeve.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b45a6b0583c35df9" Subject: Re: [TUHS] a possible source for 4.1BSD tapes X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000b45a6b0583c35df9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:55 PM wrote: > Mike Haertel wrote: > > > arnold@skeeve.com writes: > > > Isn't 4.1 on Kirk McKusick's disks? > > > > McKusick's disks look sketchy to me too: > > So can "someone" ping Kirk about this? > Keep in mind that BSD didn't really have releases. When you called up for a tape, it wasn't made from some master tape, but rolled off from a system that had right version on it. I know Kirk told me this once when I was chatting with him about tapes, RMS and other things. Thje version control wasn't quite as strict as things are today, so I'm not surprised there's some variance in images from place to place around the net. We have SCCS, and multiple images. I think the best we may be able to do is to do the this was copied from that with these changes and produce a tree of inheritance... IIRC, SCCS has issues with moved and removed files that makes it hard to reconstruct things exactly with it. I know RCS and CVS had these issues. The historical unix git repo has remotes/origin/BSD-4-Snapshot-Development remotes/origin/BSD-4_1_snap-Snapshot-Development remotes/origin/BSD-4_1c_2-Snapshot-Development branches. Also, version numbering was kinda hazy. Kirk has a big listing in his house of 4.5 BSD. This is post the first 4BSD release, but not the 5BSD release. They had thought they'd do a 5BSD, but they had all these contracts with 4BSD in them, so they were basically forced to do 4.1BSD instead, so the "4.5BSD" thing is basically an early version of what we know know as 4.1BSD.... So between these two quirks, I'm not surprised there's not an 'untainted' version of 4.1BSD around... I'm guessing the tape that has the July 1981 date on it was made in early 1982 and the extra files with the weird dates are just an artifact of when the tape was made and that people had used the 'master image' system in the mean time, if for nothing else than logging into and running the make tape script :) Warner --000000000000b45a6b0583c35df9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at = 1:55 PM <arnold@skeeve.com> = wrote:
Mike Haer= tel <tuhs@ducky.net<= /a>> wrote:

> arnold@skeeve.c= om writes:
> > Isn't 4.1 on Kirk McKusick's disks?
>
> McKusick's disks look sketchy to me too:

So can "someone" ping Kirk about this?

<= /div>
Keep in mind that BSD didn't really have releases. When you c= alled up for a tape, it wasn't made from some master tape, but rolled o= ff from a system that had right version on it. I know Kirk told me this onc= e when I was chatting with him about tapes, RMS and other things. Thje vers= ion control wasn't quite as strict as things are today, so I'm not = surprised there's some variance in images from place to place around th= e net. We have SCCS, and multiple images. I think the best we may be able t= o do is to do the this was copied from that with these changes and produce = a tree of inheritance... IIRC, SCCS has issues with moved and removed files= that makes it hard to reconstruct things exactly with it. I know RCS and C= VS had these issues. The historical unix git repo has
=C2=A0= remotes/origin/BSD-4-Snapshot-Development
=C2=A0 remotes/origin/BSD-4_1= _snap-Snapshot-Development
=C2=A0 remotes/origin/BSD-4_1c_2-Snapshot-Dev= elopment
branches. Also, version numbering was kinda hazy. Ki= rk has a big listing in his house of 4.5 BSD. This is post the first 4BSD r= elease, but not the 5BSD release. They had thought they'd do a 5BSD, bu= t they had all these contracts with 4BSD in them, so they were basically fo= rced to do 4.1BSD instead, so the "4.5BSD" thing is basically an = early version of what we know know as 4.1BSD.... So between these two quirk= s, I'm not surprised there's not an 'untainted' version of = 4.1BSD around... I'm guessing the tape that has the July 1981 date on i= t was made in early 1982 and the extra files with the weird dates are just = an artifact of when the tape was made and that people had used the 'mas= ter image' system in the mean time, if for nothing else than logging in= to and running the make tape script :)

Warner<= br>
--000000000000b45a6b0583c35df9--