Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: Michael Graff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 05/04/1999 10:34:51
Michael, if you cant keep a civil tongue, I'll respond in kind.
>Johnathan, there are many, many places where one port can do a thing
>that another port cannot. In the pkgsrc.
Most of those depend on hardware resources, or on third-party software
which isn't supplying some `critical service'.
>Once again, the SAME info can be gotten through existing means.
>Saying that since your ports cannot run CVSup that noone should use it
That is not the point. The point is, when CVSup becomes an ``official'
sevrice, users *will* want it on ports other than Greg's
more-equal-than- other ports. Quite rightly, too. That puts pressure
on *me* to provide it.
What you and Greg are doing is going to put pressure all NetBSD and
all its portmasters to port Modula-3. You are deliberately bypassing
the question of whether that's a worth-while thing to do, or whether
we as a Project should be pursuing some other
>If needed, I'll put up the damned server and that will be that. All
>this "if I can't, you can't either" is just plain crazy.
No, Michael. You dont get it. you put it up, *you* get the flak from
everyone with a sparc or arm32 or mips or vax (or whatever) who wants
to run CVSup, an i386 to run it on; or *you*, personally, along with
Greg, are going to be held publically responsible for finding
the rsources to do the port.
As you inisited on a flawed `solution' in the first place.