Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
id AA1218 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 14:30:45 EST
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Status of "official" 386BSD
Message-ID: <1993Feb12.181834.6740@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Keywords: 386bsd, releases, patchkit
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1leftoINNc8b@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> <1993Feb11.233543.23266@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 18:18:34 GMT
Lines: 46
In article <1993Feb11.233543.23266@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@seaview (Kaleb Keithley) writes:
>In article <1leftoINNc8b@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> mattb@sdd.hp.com (Matt Bonner) writes:
>>Would anyone in the know care to comment on the release schedule
>>for 386BSD? A while ago I got a thank you letter for sending in
>>my two cents worth, and it mentioned something about an interim
>>release incorporating the patches everyone has come up with, but
>>I haven't seen anything about it on the net (apologies if I missed
>>it). I got the impression it was *not* 0.2, but rather a 0.1.1
>>type of thing. Speaking of which, does anyone know anything about
>>the status of 0.2?
>
>Hear hear. I second the implicit motion.
>
>While I applaud the efforts of the people who have put together the
>"patchkit", I'm certain that you're going to confuse a lot of people
>by calling the sum of 0.1 plus the patchkit, "0.2".
>
>Or maybe Bill and Lynne's next release is going to be 0.3?
>
>Couldn't you refer to it as 0.1-plus or something along those lines.
Uh, 0.2 refers to the revision of the patchkit for 386BSD 0.1. I would
think that the "revision level" of a patched 0.1 would be "0.1-patched",
"0.1.0.2", "0.1.2", or, as it was with the 0.1 patchkit, "0.1-pl58",
indicating the patches installed on the kernel (with the renumbering
of the patches bound to take place for each revision of the patchkit,
I vote against the last).
The interim release is already out there --it's unofficial. It's called
(forgive me for inaccuracies) something like dist.fs.patchkit-0.2. By
definition, an interim release is unofficial.
Hope this clears things up.
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------