Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 05/03/1999 20:22:04
[ On Monday, May 3, 1999 at 15:49:21 (-0700), Jonathan Stone wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
> I don't. I think the onus to make it generaly available belongs with
> those who want it. I don't know what your take is there, but Greg's
> is, unabashedly, to declare that some ports are less equal than others.
> And I see *that* as contrary to the goals of the project.
The so-called "second class ports" are only unequal until their
propnents pony up the resources necessary to make themselves more equal.
That's how NetBSD got to be as equal as it is in the first place. I do
not have the skills to help, but even if I did I'd be unlikely to
volunteer my time and efforts unless I had some motive for doing so.
This isn't a government job where you can mandate equality -- it's a
volunteer effort. If the tables were turned would you do the port to
i386? What if you didn't even have the skills to do it, never mind a
machine ready and running on which to test it? This isn't something
that goes into the main system and affects the general porability of
tools and applications across the NetBSD universe -- it's just a
specialized tool that will only be used by a limited number of
developers -- normal users certainly don't care if it's available for
them or not because they never do builds of -current, and possibly never
even do a "make build". Even within the readership of current-users I'd
suspect there are a significant number of users who never track the
sources on a regular basis.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>