Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John C. Hayward <John.C.Hayward@wheaton.edu>
Date: 05/03/1999 20:48:26
With great reluctance I add my comments to this discussion.
First let me state that I have received help and support from both
Jonathan Stone (on the MIPS port) and Chris Demetriou (on the Alpha port)
getting things up and running - Thanks!
I also like the M3 language it has a lot of nice facilities.
I had a port for M3 quite a while ago for i386 which I used in my
classes (as I recall about 0.8 thru 1.1). I never got it into the regular
upgrade path because I was not able to get gdb to work correctly with
shared libraries. About that time a number of factors resulted in less
need for M3 under NetBSD. A new faculty member is arriving next fall who
also has interest in M3 so having M3 under NetBSD might be of local
I have other priorities (including an ATM driver for Efficient Speed Stream
3010 used in ADSL) which come before M3 for NetBSD.
However there is a chance this summer (no promises) I might revive the
M3 port work. We currently have NetBSD on i386, PMAX, Alpha and might
later in the summer have VAX and possibly spark. Maybe this might provide
a large enough port base to evaluate CVSup.
On 3 May 1999, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> email@example.com (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> > In addition there's nothing anywhere I can find in the published NetBSD
> > goals that says a tool has to be 100% ported before it can be used to
> > offer services under the netbsd.org name.
> I may have missed something here, but:
> are there _any_ implementations of m3 which are capable of running
> CVSup which run natively (i.e. not under emulation) on _any_ netbsd
> platform? (Last i checked, at least SRC m3 ran on no NetBSD platforms,
> but I haven't checked since before I left Digital 8-9 months ago.)
> Note also that there's a big difference between a simple piece of
> software and a language that needs to be ported to run a somewhat
> complex piece of software to access a service.
> To be honest, i wouldn't start advocating a NetBSD CVSup service
> until, say, half of the architectures NetBSD supports have a working
> native m3 implementation capable of running it.
> Chris Demetriou - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
> Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.