Subject: Re: Posting a snapshot to
To: Stephen Champion <>
From: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@LAGAVULIN.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU>
List: amiga
Date: 05/08/1995 12:52:22
> 	In addition, the directory structure on isn't 
> adequate for all of the NetBSD-Amiga files.

there's absolutely no restriction on what port maintainers put in the
'arch' tree for their architecture.  there have been "known uses" in
the past.  but that doesn't restrict new uses.

> Clumping all m68k8k files 
> won't work for amiga specific experimental kernels, patches, drivers and 
> Xservers, nor would it be proper to put all of the tools, packages, X11 
> packages and binaries into packages/binaries/NetBSD-1.0/m68k8k.

First of all, there _is_ a binary area for -current binaries.  second,
some would argue (i think i might) that "experimental *" shouldn't be
put up in a widely advertised FTP area.

	(1) the "tools" mentioned may be appropriate for arch/amiga, but
	(2) the "packages, X11 packages, and binaries," etc. _ARE_
	    either appropriate for:
		(a) packages/binaries/NetBSD-1.0/m68k8k
		(b) packages/binaries/NetBSD-current/[something]

	I sincerely doubt that there are a _large_ number of
	precompiled software packages that are amiga-specific.

> 	NetBSD-Amiga already has an established and well maintained 
> port-specific site, and IMHO, that's a Good Thing (tm).  It preserves 
> resources (disk space, bandwidth, and user limits) at, and 
> distributes maintenance time.  It also avoids the "constraints on what gets 
> put up".

It also means that people who are distributing NetBSD on various
media, e.g. CD-ROM's, tapes, or whatever, either:
	(1) are forced to look at a "non-authoritative" site,
	(2) are convinced (by lack of knowledge of an "authoritative"
		site) that they are looking at an the master site, or
	(3) don't include all of the "goodies" that they should.

The point is, the best way to get maximum distribution and to make
sure that people are aware of what's out there is to put them on the
authoritative site.

> 	I think it is a good idea to merge the two archives.  But can 
> support that reasonably?  At the moment, I doubt it.

You've given me no reason to doubt that it can support it reasonably.
(It's worth noting that i'm not sure that all of the stuff that is up
on the uni-regensburg site _should_ go up on a "public" ftp site.  A
lot of the stuff, esp. test kernels, test x servers, etc., should be
in hidden directories, etc.  The point is, unless you know what's
there, and what the caveats are related to using it, you shouldn't
get it.)

> 	Given that the current NetBSD-Amiga archives are superior to the 
> archives currently on and that there needs to be a 
> NetBSD-Amiga archive in the US or Cananda, it follows that either someone 
> in the US or Canada should mirror or that the 
> current NetBSD-Amiga archives should be integrated into the archives on 
> sun-lamp.

I would say the latter.  the former solution serious has long-term
problems, and that's what i care about.

I think it's an _incredibly_ had idea to encourage each port to have
its own archive site, or support such a site.

> 	While it would be nice if the solution to this problem were the 
> 'correct' one, without some changes at, the 'incorrect' 
> solution is more useful to the Amiga community.

I've seen nobody 'step up' to coordinate such an integration.