Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / QGSI 2.0; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!qubix!msc
From: msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: 4.2 dist tape
Message-ID: <1544@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 13:50:40 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.1544
Posted: Thu Nov 15 13:50:40 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Nov-84 08:01:04 EST
References: <1139@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 30

cspencer seems to be asking two separate questions

> Anyone have a recipe for copying 4.2 distribution tapes?
> In other words, which blocks are what size?
I've no idea.  I don't have any systems with two tape drives.
I just generate a new distribution tape when I need one.

> What stands
> in the way to a simplified full restore scheme as opposed
> to this <<MINI ROOT>> jazz? why not a stand alone
> mkfs/restore? is this because restore only can restore into
> the current working directory? there must be a better way.

Having installed both 4.1BSD, which used a standalone mkfs and
restore, and many, many, 4.2BSD systems I vastly prefer the mini-unix
method.  The mini-unix takes only 5 to 10 minutes to load and then
you have the complete Unix essentials with which to install the real
root file system.  It all operates very smoothly and I feel no need
for a "better" way.

The reason it is done this way in 4.2 is that restore works through
regular system calls on the block device rather than operating directly
on the raw device and inodes as the 4.1 and v7 restor's do.  This makes
it very hard to write a standalone version of restore.

Incidentally "restore" is a vast iprovement over "restor".
-- 
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@qubix.UUCP,  qubix!msc@decwrl.ARPA
...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!qubix!msc