Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: Feico Dillema <>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 05/04/1999 13:28:53
>This seems to me a nice point in the discussion for a small summary
>and a suggestion for a pragmatic approach to the issues raised. I
>see two issues remaining:
>1. Partial support for CVSup may increase pressure on some portmasters.
>I think this has been discussed at length and people seem to agree that
>this is not a real issue as long as CVSup doesn't have an `official
>supported by TNF' label on it. I think the misunderstanding is on what
>`officially supported' exactly means. At least, that's not clear to me
>either. So, couple of questions:
>-Would imply official support? 
>-Could a disclaimer message (this service is unsupported by TNF) nuke the
>official-support implication of that?
>-Would a link on the NetBSD site to a `cvsup.not-netbsd.tld' imply official
>support too?
>-In other words; what makes a service officially supported by TNF?

Being under the name. Being an officially supported way for
people to access our sources. (Medium-term, perhaps even dropping
support for sup, if cvsup is as good as people say).

>2. CVSup is technically a flawed solution for NetBSD (in the long run
>as officially supported solution).
>This one still seems to stand. We have the following choices for the 
>future to get a CVSup style service:
>1. Get Modula-3 + CVSup ported to many or most NetBSD-supported archs.
>2. Develop C-version of CVSup.
>3. Develop something entirely new and better than CVSup.
>All three choices take a considerable amount of work to accomplish. This means
>that consenses on the approach to take would be valuable in order not to waste
>a lot of effort. Getting some experience with CVSup may help in making the
>right choice. My suggestion would be to set up a CVSup server either 
>unofficially or `officially under probation' and evaluate how useful a service
>it really is and  to evaluate whether to go for 1., 2. or 3. above.

``What he said''. 

What I dont want is someone sneaking in the need/expectation for all
NetBSD ports to support modula-3 `under the rug', without any
consensus that that's feasible, worthwhile, or even the best approach.

>Please tell me if I completely missed the point...

<No, I think you hit the bulls-eye.