Subject: Re: Languages Was: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael K. Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/02/1999 18:50:32
In message <email@example.com>, "Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>All of our source tree is written in (ANSI) C, C++, and interpreted
>languages with interpreters located elsewhere in the tree and written
>in C or C++. This is not unreasonable, when you think about
>it. Maintaining compilers for 18 different platforms would be a
Apologies for adding more to this already tiresome thread, but I think
there's an important distinction that I don't recall seeing made. It
is one thing to offer a service using a program written in a language
not supported by all NetBSD platforms, and quite another to _include
that program in the source tree_. No one is asking for CVSup to
become a part of the source tree, and there's no reason it needs to
be. It's just a service for distributing sources, and as Greg pointed
out, it technically doesn't even have to run on a NetBSD server (or
client, for that matter).
Hypothetically speaking, if there were a source distribution system
that was 100 times faster than anything else available, but was only
available for, say, Windows NT, would it somehow be wrong to use this
system to distribute NetBSD sources?
"Use whatever works best for you."