Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 05/04/1999 13:33:24
>An interesting point in this: since cvs isn't a part of the NetBSD tree,
>but is only a package, and since it was just stated that CVSup must become
>a part of the tree in order for it to be an official distribution method,
>does this mean that cvs must also be imported into the NetBSD source tree
>prior to making the NetBSD source "officially" available via anoncvs?
Sure, modulo licensing requirements. Why not? We made sup part of the
tree some time ago. Even server-side end.
CVS is already essential for anyone with commit access.
Another point is that for this to be an `official' service, we need
native netbsd binaries. (Thats a very longstanding goal of NetBSD).
That means m3 running native on a `reasonable' range of NetBSD
platforms-- not wrapping some other OS'es binaries in a package.
So far we have zero ports running m3. Even just i386 and alpha (which
shuld be portable from freebsd) is not `reasonable', imho.