Subject: Re: NetBSD on Aminet?
To: Urban Mueller <email@example.com>
From: Hubert Feyrer <Hubert.Feyrer@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Date: 01/19/1995 16:13:39
> >1.) [Uploads moderated at regensburg only]
> Sending files from wuarchive to regensburg, moderate there, and sending back
> seems a bit complicated to me. Moderating at both points of upload would
> be easier to implement. In any case, the file exchange will be two-way,
> that's for sure. Both sides benefit.
I see no big problem in sending them forth and back. Another alternative would
be to put NetBSD-uploads on uni-r exclusively, then all you have to do is to
get them and fix the names, which should be possible do do with a program. The
other way round means only more work by hand as expanding the filenames means
putting additional information in that can't be obtained from anywhere else.
> >At the moment only lha, lzh and dms are accepted by Aminet. Time to change
> >the rules?
> For UNIX files, probably. However, what would you guys think about using LhA
> for NetBSD software? Compresses a little bit worse, but it's faster and
> easier to use. I'd repack everything to .lha, then. [Don't worry, Hubert,
> I'd write a .lha->.tar.gz script for you...]. Is this out of the question?
Yes. the tar we use (GNU-tar) is capable of archiving every
unix-filetype(device-nodes, links both hard and soft, ...). I seriously doubt
that the unix-lha can do this. Besides that, NetBSD is Unix, and noone on Unix
ever used lha. How about changing the whole Aminet to .tgz? :)
> >I am in the process of preparing a NetBSD distribution kit for my
> >Amiga users group. [...]
> >I thought that this package might be better for Aminet that in its
> >current form. I also felt that Aminet would be a good place for
> >*releases* of NetBSD and for Amiga-specific contributions but not
> >necessarily as a full distribution/mirroring site. Comments?
> This sounds exactly like what we need. And yes, this is exactly what
> Aminet should aim for IMHO, Amiga-specfic contributions (Amiga
> binaries of UNIX tools) and releases of the OS. Short: The needs of
> a UNIX *user*, not a kernel hacker.
All this is here, too, plus some more. So why bother?
> >> > - Several search engines that don't require you to download an index
> > We do not require anything like that for NetBSD, as we have a logic
> >structure in our tree already.
> Even with a perfect tree there still wold be need for a search engine.
> If I want xv, how would I know if it's in experimental/ or contrib/?
If you want a generic xv, you go to contrib, and as it's a X-prog, contrib/X11.
experimental contains stuff that's not stable, as the name implies.
> > I bet so. All yours, all yours? Ridcule, there is no support behind
> >those 'updates' other than getting binaries for sake of lot of money.
> Could you translate that into real English for me? If I get you right,
> you criticise that a) there's no support from me for the files on
> the CD and b) the CD is expensive.
> a) Of course not, what did you think? Every Aminet CD has 4000 archives
> total, I don't have the slightest chance of knowing each of those.
That's the point! You just want to grab the goodies and let others do the dirty
work, namely the support of all those users who purchased the Aminet-CD and now
have problems with it. Markus and me put NetBSD on MP1, and we also gave
support for it, via mail, via news and also sometimes on the phone on weekends.
Can you provide this service?
> b) Nobody is forced to buy the Aminet CD for the sake of NetBSD, there
> are other BSD CDs. However most NetBSD users use AmigaDOS too; so
> they get the BSD stuff free with their Aminet CDs. (Well, <10% of
> the disk space will be used for NetBSD, so about 10% of the CD
> price is for NetBSD).
Who gets those 10%?
> >filename extensions and UFS ? For not using it? Because AmiNet is
> >beeing distributed on incapable BBSes?
> Care to read my article? OS restrictions are not the reason for my
> file naming conventions. As for .tgz: .tar.gz files are no easier to
> unpack, both require reading the fucking manual. I will of course
If you have trouble RTFM you'll end up with having even more troubles
installing unix, so this isn't an option for me.
> Tons? Regensburg has 120 archives, Aminet has 14000. As for support, no,
> there will be none. As with AmigaDOS files. What do you expect, should
> I open a hotline? I help wherever I can by email, tho. And if I were Joe,
> I'd prefer getting the software WITHOUT support to not getting the software
> AT ALL.
Yeah, and getting the support from somewhere else.
> > NetBSD and AmigaDOS are two way different things, they do not coexist
> Reality check. Every NetBSD user I know uses AmigaDOS as well. Even
I know one who doesn't... :)
> >and they do not live nice next to each other. I see no reason why i should
> >be happy about to distribute NetBSD-Amiga on AmiNet, as we have already
> >some sort of NetBSD-Net.
> With a much, much smaller range, and much, much less access features.
Well, I wouldn't call BBSs and diskettes appropriate access features. When will
we get Aminet-listings to type in? ;-)
=============== Hubert Feyrer ============================================
Weekdays: Rennerstr. 19, D-93053 Regensburg, Tel. 0941/943-2455
Weekends: Bachstr. 40, D-84066 Mallersdorf, Tel. 08772/6084
Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org == IRC: hubertf