----- Forwarded message from Lange, David -----
From: "Lange, David" <Extern.David.Lange(a)gedas.com>
Subject: AT&T Package Design
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:25:18 -0500
Just wondering who actually designed the AT&T UNIX package utility. I have
to admit the documentation of this utility is rather sparse in term of
examples of scripting problems and handling the I/O. Did internal AT&T
documentation have any more information or did it merely consist of the
source? I'm interested in creating patches and dependencies between
packages. Any information or insight would be welcome.
Regards.
D. Lange
----- End of forwarded message from Lange, David -----
The driver is for a DIVA COMP V controller.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Warren Toomey" <wkt(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
> To: "Christos Papachristou" <chpap(a)ics.forth.gr>
> Cc: <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [pups] DHV11 on BSD2.9
>
>
> > In article by Christos Papachristou:
> > > I have read in a message by Steve Schultz that there are 2.9BSD
drivers
> for
> > > the DHV11-A around. Can I still find them?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > ./net/sys/dev/dvhp.c in PDP-11/Distributions/ucb/2.9BSD/usr.tar.gz
> >
> > P.S zgrepping lists/full_filelist.gz in the Archive is very useful!
> >
> > Warren
> > _______________________________________________
> > PUPS mailing list
> > PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
>
A few questions from a newbie:
I have installed 2.9BSD on a microPDP11/73 with an RD52, using the MSCP
version of Jonathan Engdahl. After startup the kernel
indicates 160kb of memory .I am not familiar with such an old unix to
find out the details but I understand it as 256k minus the kernel. The memory
is M8067-LF i.e. 512k Qbus. Does this mean that the system can't see the
rest of it and that I have configure/recompile the kernel?
The system seems anyway to run fine.
I haven't seen an operational PDP with UNIX before this,
so I can't judge its speed. When in single user mode it seems to
me that it runs "fast". However upon entering multi user mode the speed
drops dramaticaly. I have not yet compiled in the 8 port multiplexer
(DHV11-A), so only the console is functional and thus no gettys are
loaded. So ,why is there such a change in speed? Does the multiuser mode
just rise the nice value of the console tasks?
Some information on the system. It is a KDJ11-B (M8190 -no suffix) i.e. an
11/84. So, the label on the system says microPDP11/73 (in an BA23 enclosure)
the cpu is an 11/84 (if the FPU socket is the DIP-40 slot then it is
unused), and the 2.11BSD second stage boot (version from vtserver) I
have tried indicates 11/83. The memory is after the CPU and is Qbus (M867-LF).
If I have understood what I have read in the list, this must be a mixed
system that could use PMI memory, but just uses Qbus?? What exactly is my
system? . Moreover the MSCP controller (M8639 YP i.e. RQDX1)
the serial port multiplexer(M3104 i.e. DHV11-A) and the memory are Qbus while
the cpu board is indicated as Unibus in the field guide. Can these two bus type
s be mixed? (If yes , i would be tempted to abuse the dead VAX11/780 in the
basement. Can this be done?). Anyway, I thought that the best choice of
a UNIX for it since it only has an RD52 woulbe 2.9 BSD with MSCP support.
Was this a good guess?
Hello from Gregg C Levine
Okay, here goes:
I have the current version of E-11 booting correctly on my Windows
based, (Currently!), backup box. I have booted the 2.9BSD image found
in the boot images directory from the FTP server. Does any one have
any suggestions as to how to restore an entire system to an E-11 based
setup? I have a bunch of empties that were created by John Wilson for
his emulator.
By the way, Warren your instructions for using the version that's on
the FTP server worked with this one.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
Well, here are the results of my weekends "hacking":
---------------------------
$ uname -a
2.11BSD pdp11.4mcnabb.net 2.11BSD 2.11 BSD UNIX #3: Fri Feb 21 21:00:58
PST 2003 root@:/usr/src/sys/PDP1183 pdp11
$ df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/ra0a 10078 3009 7069 30% /
/dev/ra0c 10078 2 10076 0% /tmp
/dev/ra0d 90718 40963 49755 45% /usr
/dev/ra0e 38206 29414 8792 77% /users
$ sysctl hw
hw.machine = pdp11
hw.model = 83
hw.ncpu = 1
hw.byteorder = 3412
hw.physmem = 2097152
hw.usermem = 0
hw.pagesize = 1024
$ dmesg
Feb 25 12:02
...
<5>ra0: Ver 2 mod 3
ra0: RD54 size=311200
attaching qe0 csr 174440
qe0: DEC DEQNA addr 08:00:2b:07:b7:53
attaching lo0
phys mem = 2097152
avail mem = 1727488
user mem = 307200
-----------------------------------------------
The machine is an 11/83 with 2 megs of ram, DEQNA, single RD54, TSV05,
TK50, and 3 DHV11s.
Now it looks like all I have left to do is install 400 odd patches.
--
Christopher L McNabb Tel: 540 231 7554
Operating Systems Analyst Email: cmcnabb(a)vt.edu
Virginia Tech ICBM: 37.205622N 80.414595W
GMRS: WPSR255 ARS: N2UX Grid Sq: EM97SD
Does anyone remember this program (probably /usr/games/festoon) and in
which Unixes it was distributed? I think it must have existed in at
least some BSDs, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't in the ordinary 4.3
distribution.
--tim
Ron Hardin, who worked at Western Electric in Columbus (I think)
at the time, confirms that he is the author:
Festoon was mine, chiefly written one Saturday with a tragically flawed
copy of Lester's _Introductory Transformational Grammar of English_
bought that morning on a $1 table at Woolworth on my knee.
The tragic flaw was that there are severe lexical constraints on language,
which is why there are so many made-up words in festoon, to avoid them.
The introduction of awful phrases came in reaction to writer's workbench
from Lorinda Cherry, which had a real mine of them; and phrases from my
boss, S D Hester, who was a wretched writer. People contributed on noticing
that.
It was greatly helped by troff (``The _pay_ people to write this crap?'' is
a typical reaction. Apparently it was not out of the question for Western
Electric.)
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
On the internet, nobody can tell you're whether you're on the internet.
> From: David Evans <dfevans(a)bbcr.uwaterloo.ca>
> > Now it looks like all I have left to do is install 400 odd patches.
>
> If somebody goes through this pain, any chance of making a new source kit?
Most of the kits I've seen out there are around #430 or so - that
only leaves a dozen or so patches that need to be applied.
> Though I guess some of the patches are not necessarily desirable in all
> circumstances...
By and large they are not only desirable but necessary/mandatory. There
are very few 'frivolous' ("gee, this looks like fun") patches in the
batch. Trying to "pick and choose" which parts of which patches to
apply might be doable in the short term but there _will_ come the
day when a bug is encountered or a feature desired that was fixed or
added as one of the parts/patches that was left out. Best to get
the pain over _once_ and be done with it ;)
Cheers,
Steven Schultz
> From: Christopher McNabb <cmcnabb(a)vt.edu>
> $ dmesg
>
> Feb 25 12:02
> ...
> <5>ra0: Ver 2 mod 3
> ra0: RD54 size=311200
> attaching qe0 csr 174440
> qe0: DEC DEQNA addr 08:00:2b:07:b7:53
> attaching lo0
>
> phys mem = 2097152
> avail mem = 1727488
> user mem = 307200
Congratulations!
> Now it looks like all I have left to do is install 400 odd patches.
Actually you only need to install the ones _after_ the one listed
in /VERSION. Look at the first line of /VERSION, it should look
something like this:
Current Patch Level: 444
then all you need are the ones between your current version and 444
(which is the latest).
Be sure you have the complete system (all the sources, and include
files, etc) installed and read/follow the directions (which are
quite extensive) included with each patch. SOME patches can be
"batched" (if a couple patches in sequence are updating the kernel
then you don't need to rebuild the kernel after each patch, etc).
Good Luck!
Steven Schultz
