Re: A diff for INSTALL.html

[Andras Farkas <deepbluemistake%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 1:59 AM Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 03:03:49AM -0800, Andras Farkas wrote:
>
> -.Dl # Ic "cd / ; tar -zxpf set_name.\*[setsuffix]"
> +.Dl # Ic "cd / ; tar -xzpf set_name.\*[setsuffix]"
>
> What is that change good for?

It's certainly an optional change, for as long as -zxpf works with
NetBSD tar, and it does.
But: for some forms of correctness... traditional (old) versions of
tar expect the key command (c, r, t, u, x) to be the *first* letter in
the list of flags, especially if the older style (xzpf) is used rather
than the newer style (-xzpf)
So, it's just an optional correctness change.

> > > One thing I didn't do in the diff...  I wish the mentions of full,
> > > minimal, and custom installations mentioned how a full installation
> > > isn't truly full: it doesn't install the source sets.
>
> Maybe we should just mention the source sets in the description of the
> various sets, just like we do describe the debug sets even if they are not
> part of all install media (but can be downloaded during installation).
>
> I would still call it a "full" installation, as there are no
> restrictions on the installed system from the users PoV (similar to the
> debug sets) - it just is not enough to do a full NetBSD build, but most
> people wouldn't want to do that on every installed system anyway.

I like source sets, and install them every time on any OS I use, since
they generally contain useful documentation that isn't installed on
the OS by default. (both written documentation, and source code: and
source code *is* documentation)  However, this is less necessary on
NetBSD than other BSDs because NetBSD retains and installs much of the
USD (User's Supplementary Documents) which is something I appreciate a
lot!