Subject: Re: More on Mac-side stuff (rev 2)
To: Richard Wackerbarth <>
From: Andrew Cagney <>
List: macbsd-development
Date: 01/20/1995 14:42:04

First it appears that the comments I've seen are converging on a
reasonable (and simple) decision.  Any way:

Excerpts from mail: 19-Jan-95 Re: More on Mac-side stuff .. Bill
Studenmund@loki.Sta (1636*)

> That would probably be the best way to go for an instalation kit. Though it
> would be nice to have a more-featured utility that could do the tar/gzip
> copying/formating/fscking work from the MacOS. :-)

On this, and also following on from the question

Excerpts from net-bsd.mac.install: 19-Jan-95 Re: More on Mac-side stuff
=> macbsd-development@Ne (1154)

> 	Always wondered.  Are you able to build the UN*X tree under
> 	MacOS?  I've always assumed you could.

that I asked (answer is apparently not yet :-( ), and an earlier posting

Excerpts from net-bsd.mac.install: 18-Jan-95 More on Mac-side stuff
Allen Briggs@puma.bevd.b (7284*)

> [ From Stan: ]
> > but I actually have all of GCC/GAS/LD/BINUTILS/GDB building and running

I'd just like to suggest that regardless of the install process (and OS
host) selected,  I feel that the MacBSD group would benefit (now and
down the track) from at least being able to build kernels under MacOS,
installing them into unmounted UFSs.  From the above, you must be close.
 Why of benefit?

	o	A developer no longer needs a separate stable
		system to build/test a new kernel.  MacOS can
		be used as the cross development platform.

	o	You've opened the posibility of developing future kernels
		(such as for newer architectures :-) from MacOS

	o	The entire *BSD community benefits from having
		those UFS tools I keep suggesting. (Hmm, I'm a
		member of the *BSD comunity :-)

>From this, and the fact that MacUN*X will want to be able to:

Excerpts from net-bsd.mac.install: 19-Jan-95 Re: More on Mac-side stuff
Richard Wackerbarth@data (2473*)

> This should not be true. A few months ago, one of the hackers had an
> application that read the Mac HFS. It should not be difficult to convert
> into a fs driver. For our purposes, read-only is adequate.  That way we can
> use a HD folder as if it were that recovery floppy that we so desparately
> need. :-)

any way, what about people first just address the underlying tools vis:

	MacOS tool chain support
	UFS tools (why does this one keep appearing :-)

then (chance has it) later the answer to which of the options is better
will have fallen out.


PS: Who cares :-)