From: reed@reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed)
Subject: [TUHS] 4.0 BSD confusion....
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:08:05 -0500 (CDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.01.1108310936020.7362@t1.m.reedmedia.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8F0F32CC-B42B-4B26-B38B-11B9DFC01A62@orthanc.ca>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-31 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-29 21:16 Jason Stevens
2011-08-30 1:04 ` Greg 'groggy' Lehey
2011-08-30 18:37 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2011-08-31 15:08 ` Jeremy C. Reed [this message]
[not found] ` <201108301459.p7UEx2Hr018173@chez.mckusick.com>
2011-09-08 13:10 ` Keith Bostic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.NEB.2.01.1108310936020.7362@t1.m.reedmedia.net \
--to=reed@reedmedia.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).