Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <>
From: Aidan Cully <>
List: current-users
Date: 05/01/1999 03:06:31
On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 01:19:31AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Saturday, May 1, 1999 at 00:18:38 (-0400), Aidan Cully wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
> >
> > FWIW, I've used CVSup on FreeBSD, and I don't think there should be a
> >  For NetBSD to provide a machine in the
> > domain would make it look like we were advocating CVSup as a
> > distribution mechanism for anyone that wants to run NetBSD, which is
> > the wrong message to send when it doesn't run on all of our platforms.
> Meanwhile in other threads NetBSD folks are crying about how hard it is
> to promote NetBSD and to make it available to users.  It's no wonder we
> can't win -- we're being beat over the head by our very own community!

I won't say that that's a completely seperate issue, but I don't want to
get into discussing it here.  Suffice it to say, that I think the NetBSD
*idea* just isn't as marketable as FreeBSD/Linux.

> I *have* heard FreeBSDers lambaste NetBSD for not using CVSup (and I
> suspect the frequency of name-calling will drastically increase once
> NetBSD has a public CVS repository that can't be CVSup'ed).

They're FreeBSDers for a reason, we're NetBSDers for a reason.

> The NetBSD community should be saying that if you run NetBSD then you
> *can* use CVSup, even if only on a somewhat limited set of (the most
> popular) platforms for the time being.

Of course you can.  All someone needs to do is set up a third-party
CVSup server. :-)

> The NetBSD community should not be saying that you can't use CVSup with
> NetBSD.  You might not think you're saying that (as you've tried to
> claim), but that's most definitely the message that comes across.

I thought the message that came across was "we don't want to officially
sanction CVSup as a method for tracking our CVS repository."

> New tools like this can never make headway in this position unless the
> first available platforms actually implement them.  Only then will there
> be any incentive to improve the completeness of their support.  There is
> no "bad message" sent to anyone by choosing to supprt them.  Quite the
> contrary -- this should present a challenge to the users on unsupported
> platforms to do the port so that they're not left out.

Interesting choice of words..  You say "challenge" where I'd say "burden."
I don't think we want to port M3 to all of our platforms, and I really
doubt that anyone apart from us would ever devote any effort into
maintaining the M3 port after we do, hypothetically, get it working.

> Anyone who thinks refusing to support CVSup because it isn't immediately
> supported on all available NetBSD platforms is a good thing is playing
> ostrich in an ivory tower with no windows.

speaking of propoganda..

> Anyone who promotes this
> refusal is sending a powerful message that NetBSD is really a closed
> community and they won't accept anything they don't select and control.

That looks like a total non-sequitur to me.  The problem is that we
_would_ have to control the M3 port to every one of our platforms.  What
a pain!

"Hey Killjoy!  How's your niece who's marrying a doctor?"
"It's time to admit that man's capacity for genocide is not aberrational,
 but is part of his nature!"
	-- Tom the Dancing Bug's Super-Fun-Pak Comix