On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 1:59 AM Martin Husemann <mar...@duskware.de> 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!
