On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Dave Huang wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > The intent is to put the CODA stuff in a separate set, so you need not 
> > install it. However, having *unavailable* as a base set would seem to
> > me to be a bad idea.
> 
> What about the netatalk userland stuff? I haven't looked real hard for it
> lately, but last I checked, there weren't any precompiled binary
> distributions; I had to compile it myself. The netatalk kernel support
> isn't even particularly new; I think it was in 1.3.

That's my fault.

There are two ways you can get Netatalk right now. Either get the
NetBSD-patched version on ftp.netbsd.org, or get Adrian Sun's patched
version.

Part of my problem is that life's been very busy of late. I'm trying to
find a job and graduate (anyone in the bay area doing scientific modeling
w/ NetBSD in a non-startup firm?).

The other problem is that there are two versions of Netatalk at the
moment. There's the "official" one from umich, and a heavily patched one
from a student at washington.edu. Only the latter had AppleshareIP, but
I'm not sure what Adrian's long-term support will be like.

Part of me wants to just make netatalk support a package, so you could
then change it, and keep track of what's what.

Last I asked about it, having packages write over /usr/bin wasn't liked.
Though maybe if the installer registered it in the package system as part
of an upgrade...

Take care,

Bill