On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:22:58 -1000 Tim Newsham <tim.newsham(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ahhhmmmm. ??? That was what I did: I used a 4.4BSD, bootstraped by NetBSD, to bootstrap 4.4BSD. This resulted in a natively instaled 4.4BSD that run well. But it must be about 10 years ago when I did this. So I can't give exact details. -- \end{Jochen} \ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:37:25 -1000 Tim Newsham <tim.newsham(a)gmail.com> wrote: Obviously yes. :-) I did exactely what you describe: I used NetBSD to install the first 4.4BSD. Then I booted this first 4.4BSD and used the first 4.4BSD to install the second 4.4BSD. The second 4.4BSD was OK. -- \end{Jochen} \ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:06:35 +1000 Nick Downing <downing.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote: Most likely I used 4.4BSD-Lite2. -- \end{Jochen} \ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, Nick Downing wrote: It doesn't appear to include the needed code. From looking at huge diff, I don't see any additions identified from Jolitz/Telemuse/386BSD. (For example, Lite already had Jolitz i386 code and Lite2 only had minimal changes to the code.) I quote from Cover.rel2 document for Lite2: ``It will not be possible to compile or run this software without a pre-existing system that is already installed and running. In addition, the distribution does not include sources for a complete system. It includes source code and manual pages for the C library, approximately 90% of the utilities distributed as part of 4.4BSD, and most of the kernel (the same subsystems that were deleted in Net/2 are still missing in 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2 (support for executing files, doing physical I/O, managing the buffer cache, handling process tracing, terminal character I/O, and doing accounting).'' The diff is huge. Lite2 has many changes: ``includes the copy editing work done for the Usenix/O'Reilly manuals as well as numerous bug fixes and enhancements that have been accumulated in the year since the release of 4.4BSD-Lite. Of particular interest are the changes needed to port the system to 64-bit architectures, important security enhancements to TCP/IP, and much improved functionality for the union and log-structured filesystems.'' (See http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/1995/03/23/0008.html or the Cover.rel2 document.) I think is also incorporates many changes already done by BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD. By the way, the TUHS page at http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=4.4BSD lists some files removed to create Lite. Actually per filenames, only the sysv_shm.c and shm.h and cpio.c files were removed. (cpio replaced with pax.) All were modified. (That TUHS page also has two mistakes: lists /sys/sys/buf.h twice and misspells /sys/ufs/inode.h as indode.h.) The Restricted Files also listed: sys/kern/kern_physio.c, sys/kern/vfs_bio.c, and sys/sys/tty.h and they are still included in Lite. Probably because files were not included in historical AT&T code, because newer USL code did include them, lots rewritten and so if any code was reused it became insignificant and was agreed on. vfs_bio.c was mentioned in a declaration stating is was based on published pseudo-code. Where is the actual list of files missing in Lite (that are in Encumbered)?