Subject: Re: Posting a snapshot to
To: None <, Chris_G_Demetriou@LAGAVULIN.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU>
From: Hubert Feyrer <>
List: amiga
Date: 05/09/1995 04:58:17
> > 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.

The files mentioned here are put together in a dir calles 'experimental', and
everyone entering it should know what he does...

> Second:
> 	(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.

There are quite some packages precomiled for NetBSD/amiga, and in an effort to
incorporate this into the packages-archive on, John Kohl has changed
the format of many packages, but as the packages here don't use the pkgtools
(which aren't very handy in my eyes (no, don't start bashing ;-)), quite some
are out of order ofter the conversion...

If someone would recompile everything this would be a first step into merging and, but it sure wouldn't be the last.

Next would probably be incorporating all those documents here, which are quite
amiga-specific in some points, the seperating what is amiga-only and what is 
not, then what to do with all those experimental stuff, ...

Lots of work to do... right now I'm a bit(?) short with time, so I'm quite happy
with the current situation, although I know that it's *not* optimal from's point of view.

> > 	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.

*cough* well, the situation right now is that if someone who'd like to make
a CD or whatever would rather miss the goodies if he doesn't go to uni-r... :>

> 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.)

>From my point of view people rather like to have a complete archive for their
Preferred Platform, and if the beta-stuff is sufficiently seperated from the
apps (packages), it's ok. After all, it's their chance of getting something 
newer than the latest snapshot. ;-)

> > 	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.

Right, so... who will do it??? I'll have to take a close look on somewhen to see if i could move over the existing archives in a smooth way (I'd
like to continue administrating the amiga-part then, though, if that's 

> > 	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.

Neither have I, but after all, who *is* interrested in it? :->

Damn, let me watch again, and then I'll see how to merge them. 
Don't expect me to do this before the next week, though!