Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!decuac!felix!zemon
From: avolio@decuac.dec.com (Frederick M. Avolio)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: /etc/init -> /bin/init
Message-ID: <31611@felix.UUCP>
Date: 22 Apr 88 23:03:18 GMT
References: <27815@felix.UUCP> <29929@felix.UUCP> <31574@felix.UUCP>
Sender: zemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: avolio@decuac.dec.com (Frederick M. Avolio)
Organization: DEC SWS, Landover, MD
Lines: 36
Approved: zemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-Path:



In article <31574@felix.UUCP> fuat@cunixc.columbia.edu (Fuat C. Baran) writes:

>The release notes are definitely insufficient.  The section you
>mention mainly discusses reorganization due to diskless workstations,
>especially the distinction between /usr/bin and /bin, /usr/lib and
>/lib, etc.  It did not warn me that init was moved so trying to boot
>with a 2.2 kernel on a 2.0 filesystem, would not work at all.


Yes, this is true they do not cover every possible contingency.

>In general, I do not find the release notes very helpful at all. ...

I strongly suggest you fill out the READER'S COMMENTS card found in
the back of every manual.  That's the best way to affect a change in
this regard.

> Wasn't 2.2 supposed to be a "maintenance" release to mostly fix bugs?
No.  Maintenance releases (shoud they ever happen :-) ) would be "odd numbered"
releases (e.g., 2.3).

...


>P.S.  Do you by any chance know where in the release notes they
>mention that getmnt(2) was incompatibly modified so that things like
>the old mount/umount/df and any user program using getmnt(2) would no
>longer work?  I didn't notice it when I read through the notes.

Yeah, that is a tough one.  Release notes currently do not list every
subroutine and system call that has changed.  The general rule is when
you receive a full installation, do a full installation unless told
specifically that you can do otherwise.


Fred