From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Aug 28 14:20:01 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA29067 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Rigel.orionsys.com (root@rigel.orionsys.com [205.148.224.9]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA29055 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dbabler@localhost) by Rigel.orionsys.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA07486 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:19:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Dave Babler To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is it live, or... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > >Hmmm... you sort of lost me there. (X-files?) > lndir is in the X11R6 tree. I realized that after I sent the mail - unforunately, I do not have any of the X distribution due to lack of space (but of course it *is* on the CD) > > > I figured I could just nuke > >the current source tree and link the source tree on the CD to the base, > >but how in the world would CTM work in this case? Or SUP? > > The tree built with lndir is a real set of directories on the HD with a > link to the individual files on the CD. This is opposed to one line to the > top of a tree on the CD. Individual files can be replaced by removing the > old version and copying a new one in its place. Ah, okay... is there any way to do with without using X windows? > > > The goal is to free > >up some HD space, but I don't see how using the CD in this context can > >work, unless I just stay with the CD release only. > > 1) Identify all files that have changed. > 2) Remove any of them that are links to the CD and replace them with a real > file on the disk. > 3) Space is still saved for those files which remain unchanged. > > >PS: sorry for posting the original questiion twice, but I got an odd > >notice (from attmail.com) claiming > attmail is messed up. Just ignore them > I sort of figured they were hosed