Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: None <>
From: Michael G. Schabert <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/30/1999 16:09:12
>[ On Friday, April 30, 1999 at 00:53:25 (-0400), Michael G. Schabert wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
>> That's pretty ass-backwards if you're choosing a whole machine just for one
>> application.
>As Peter already poins out, this is exactly what happens with highly
>specialized applications.

Highly specialized AND totally core. This doesn't fall into that category.
The CVSup doesn't actually DO anything as far as computing's concerned. It
only ALLOWS you to do other things.

>On a more general note I'll point out that there are fewer and fewer
>general purpose computing environments, and more and more personal
>and/or specialized ones in use every day.

I must disagree here. I see the opposite happening. There used to be
specialized servers, but now desktop machines have become more powerful, &
are now being asked to be do-all machines. Organizations are no longer
springing for specialized machines but are instead calling on the end
user's machines to double as servers. At least that's my experience.

>> Ummmm, you don't find there to be a difference between a text editor and
>> the method used to collect cvs repo crap? If & when NetBSD decides to use
>> CVSup, a fair amount of able users will switch over to using it. If it
>> later breaks, many ppl may have no other way set up to do that.
>Pulleeease!  I doubt the FTP server will disappear any time soon....

I wasn't saying that. Please read what I said. I said that if you promote
the CVSup, then that's all that users will have set up. If there were a
CVSup server right now, and you received a new NetBSD/alpha or i386
machine, it's obvious that you personally would set it up to be a CVSup
client. If you did that, would you ALSO set it up for anonCVS or SUP? Hell,
no. And the FTP server isn't even an're comparing apples 'n'
oranges there. There's a slight difference between downloading the entire
source and using something like CVSup.

>> On the same note, you're trying to tell them that *they* have to do the
>> work of running it. As someone else pointed out, it's not necesssary for
>> NetBSD to officially adopt it. Anyone can set up their own server for it,
>> grabbing the sources from official channels & redistributing them with
>> CVSup.
>Since when?  I offered to set it up and maintain it.  I'll likely do the
>same work anyway if they choose not to do it.

That's my point. Who on here has told you NOT to do it???? What you're
asking for is official sanction.

> If you don't like it then you're
>completely free not to use it, but you cannot say what others must do.

Greg. Please read and understand. NOONE is telling you not to do it. PLEASE
do it! It would be a great service to any who can use it. It would take
load off from the "official" NetBSD servers. Just don't ask NetBSD to give
it an official home.

>Oh, my goodness.  You really were not paying attention.  Nobody is
>talking about putting CVSup *into* NetBSD.  At best it would only become
>another of the zillion packages in pkgsrc and a service running on a
>machine in the domain.

See, you had us right until that last part...

>Then get out of the way!

Noone's even trying to get in your way. There are plenty of packages in the
pkgsrc tree that won't run on all platforms (mostly emulators & such which
have processor calls). I don't think anyone'll object to that going in

Noone's in your way. Everyone here's rooting for you. I'm sure that you'll
have plenty of people around here who'll happily guinnea pig the
experiment. We're practically begging you to do it. Get it, build it, run, drink, be merry...even advertise it...but don't expect it to get
a Perhaps you could even get it into the i386 FAQ and
alpha FAQ (I personally think it would be fine mentioned there...but then
again, I'm nobody as far as TNF goes). I don't know if it would really
belong in the main stuff, though.

Just my thoughts & opinions,
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.