Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mailrus!ncar!cruff
From: cruff@ncar.ucar.edu (Craig Ruff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re:  requested clarification of minix issues
Message-ID: <7609@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 9 Jun 90 14:31:03 GMT
References: <9006081924.AA02248@hplwbc.hpl.hp.com>
Reply-To: cruff@handies.UCAR.EDU (Craig Ruff)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 29

In article <9006081924.AA02248@hplwbc.hpl.hp.com> culberts@hplwbc.hpl.hp.com (Bruce Culbertson) writes:
>	minix.tar.Z, 252K, includes the OS image, nm output of
>	the image so you can patch your disk info into it, all
>	sources (not cdiff's) needed to recompile the image,
>	libc.a, and a handful of other things

I think this will be the more useful of the two.

>After someone proves they have a legal copy of Minix by mailing
>me their official Minix boot disk with the Prentice-Hall copyright

Is this really necessary?  I'm considering getting the 1/2" tape version.
Do you want me to mail the tape?  Would it be sufficient to e-mail part
of a program included in the distribution that hasn't been published?
Perhaps the part should be chosen on a case by case basis.  Well, that
may be too much trouble.  Of course, the Mac version may be available by
then and I'll just get that instead.  (Then mailing a floppy isn't much
of a problem.)

>on it, I would return the disk and e-mail the above files to the individual.

E-mail is fine for me.  Are the pieces included in minix.tar.Z really useful
by themselves?  For example, if it was just the kernel, mm, fs and 32k-specific
parts of libc, it might make sense to place it into the archive too.
A person would still need the rest of Minix to get things running.
-- 
Craig Ruff      	NCAR			cruff@ncar.ucar.edu
(303) 497-1211  	P.O. Box 3000
			Boulder, CO  80307