On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> >
> >> Is the kernel source used to build a snapshot available as a .tgz? If so,
> >> where? I found the snapshot I needed
> >>
> >> /pub/NetBSD/arch/macppc/snapshot/20011221-1.5ZA on ftp.plig.org ,
> >>
> >> but not the source for it. I need to compile a kernel.

> I didn't/don't really want to switch to -current, but thanks for the tip.

That snapshot is a snapshot of current. If you're running that
snapshot, you're running current.

> Would it be a good idea to tarball the snapshot sources? It would take up a
> bit of server space, but it would allow people who need a functionality only
> available in -current to recompile kernels etc. without long and complex cvs
> updating. Making the tarball wouldn't take long if done at the same time as
> the snapshot.

The idea has been kicked around. It seems to me, that it's redundant,
since the date in the snapshot name already completely identifies the
source (or nearly so), which is already available in various forms.

It's not like you'd really need the exact source to build a custom
kernel -- source slightly newer should do fine. "config" even comes
with syssrc.tgz, so it's only the rare update to "lex" or "yacc" that
causes problems.

> Snapshots seem generally to be more reliable than a -current taken at
> random. In fact I can't really see the point of snapshots without their
> source being available at least to developers (but maybe they want people to
> test a specific snapshot/kernel).

The source is available through cvs. I used to use cvs over a 28,800
modem (in fact, I still do, a little).  While it takes all day to
check out a clean tree, it doesn't take nearly that long to update.

I think the point of the snapshots is to get people to test current,
who don't want to be bothered to build from source.

Frederick