On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 01:01:24PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> It amounts to same thing if you're an outsider looking in, especially
> when those outsiders are already well enamoured with CVSup and know the
> cost they would pay for going back to a more primitive update system.

I doubt it will negatively affect NetBSD. OpenBSD doesn't offer
CVSup, yet they manage a fairly large userbase and don't get blasted
for no CVSup access.

> In real life things don't always work that way, thankfully.  From other
> correspondence I've had I would guess that the M3 community would gladly
> welcome new ports and given their previous track record in making sure
> all ports are maintained with new releases, I don't think we'd end up
> with the situation you're hypothesising.

So you're saying that the M3 people have at least 22 machines to
devote to the various NetBSD architectures to make sure they keep
working? What happens if we port it to arm32 and they later drop
support for it (which they've done in the past)?

If NetBSD commits to CVSup then it shouldn't be half-assed.

Look, I'm just as keen on seeing CVSup (or an equivalent) on NetBSD
as the next guy, but you can't always get what you want. If you
want it so badly, put your money where your mouth is and port
Modula3 to NetBSD/i386 or NetBSD/alpha or something. It already
runs under FreeBSD under those platforms, so it probably won't be
that hard to port it, and I'm sure John Polstra would be happy to
give you pointers for the changes you'll need.

I doubt TNF wouldn't point people who want CVSup at your machine
with the caveat of it `not being officialy supported', a FAQ entry,
a pointer on the homepage, etc.,.

-- 
Brian Cully						<shmit@rcn.com>
``I'm not surprised,'' said I. ``You created God in your own image,
and when you found out he was no good you abolished him. It's quite a
common form of psychological suicide.''
				-- Robertson Davies, Fifth Business