Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
id AA7114 ; Mon, 18 Jan 93 10:47:44 EST
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!cf-cm!myrddin.isl.cf.ac.uk!paul
From: paul@isl.cf.ac.uk (Paul)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Getting partial source
Keywords: kernel source
Message-ID: <1993Jan18.171953.28194@cm.cf.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Jan 93 17:19:51 GMT
References: <C0yJyy.GM6@cscns.com> <1993Jan17.082728.1673@runx.oz.au>
Sender: news@cm.cf.ac.uk (Network News System)
Organization: Intelligent Systems Lab, ELSYM, Universiity of Wales, College of
Cardiff.
Lines: 34
In article <1993Jan17.082728.1673@runx.oz.au> bde@runx.oz.au (Bruce Evans) writes:
>
>You can get all the kernel sources except for headers from the first
>5 or 6 parts of src01. Otherwise the system is very badly packaged,
>having important headers at the end of the binary distribution, 30MB
>away.
>
I was recently frustrated by this. I decided for various reasons to
clean up my kernel sources to install some new patches so I deleted the
src directory after backing up the bits I needed kept. However, when I
re-installed the src dist there weren't any header files!! To get them
I had to re-install the binaries as well.
Anyway, enough of the moaning, I think 0.2 should be better packaged.
My preferences would be
A binaries only dist.
A kernel sources only dist.
The rest of the "standard" sources dist.
Contributed sources.
Some of the current etc dist I think should go in the "standard"
sources dist and the isode stuff from there should be distributed
seperately. To be honest, I don't really see the point in distributing
packages that are easily available from archives.
Just a few thoughts.
--
Paul Richards, University of Wales, College Cardiff
JANET:paul@uk.ac.cf.isl Internet:paul@isl.cf.ac.uk
UUCP: paul@cf-isl.UUCP or ...!uunet!mcsun!uknet!cf!isl!paul