body:component=">",overflowtext=">",overflowoffset=0
In message <Pine.SGI.4.04.9904261820200.23736-100000@world.std.com>
Brian D Chase writes:

>It's obviously a desireable tool to have in one's box.

If only it wasnt written in such a godforsaken unportable language:)

[snip]


>The gripe is that the tool is only available to a subset of users.  This
>may not be an issue for FreeBSD, but NetBSD covers a much wider spectrum
>of supported platforms.  The issues of cross-platform compatiblity are of
>great importance to this audience.  Many of NetBSDs supported platform
>have very meager resources relative to contemporary systems.  These slower
>systems (operating just as final destinations for the trees) would greatly
>benefit from less overhead in transfering files.

Yes. But it's precisely these platforms on which Modula-3 doesn't run
:).

If only CVSup had been written in a more living language, I suspect
we'd take to it like a shot.  But looking at the SRC homepage
referenced by the page Justin cited, porting to all NetBSD platforms
would double the number of platforms SRC M3 release 3.6 runs on.

To a first approximation, the problem with m3 is ``Its dead, Jim''.
The marginal overhaed of supporting M3 on *one* platform, if you've
got an addict, may be small. For all NetBSD's platforms? No, thanks.



>And hey, what's to say that the mirror servers couldn't benefit just as
>much as the master server by having to send less information.  More
>optimal use of bandwidth is something that is desireable across the board.

They can. Just as long as they're an i386 or an alpha.  Problem is,
many of the NetBSD servers where this would benefit aren't i386es or
alphas.