Subject: Re: Alright, damnit, this is getting annoying.
To: email@example.com <port-vax@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Boris Gjenero <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/11/1997 20:55:53
Rick Copeland wrote:
> it to work more than I. BUT, there should at least be one copy somewhere
> kept on the port that will function as the installation directions say it
> will. If it really does not work and is in developement and is just been
> put out there for others to work on it should state that somewhere so people
> would know this going into it. I have used the SUN and I386 ports and they
> keep a "copy up" that will fly (run) as they discribe in the installation
I totally agree... this is a big problem with NetBSD/vax now. I have
two VS2000 and one uVAXII. I just need one machine running a totally
solid NetBSD (others can be used for bleeding edge development). If I
can't even reliably compile the kernel then the chances that I'd ever
work on it are really, really slim. I've done work in the past on
cross-compilation from Linux, but I still need to port some more
utilities before I can cross-compile the kernel. I guess that could be
part of the solution, but I still really want a VAX that I can pound on
without crashing it.
BTW. Could version 1.1 satisfy the need for a stable system on the
> I will help out however I can, but I am just learning how to program (I am a
> network engineer) and I know there are some really sharp people out there
> that can really do some serious code!
I'd like to help the port as well. My main problem is my total lack of
documentation for these beasts.
| Boris Gjenero <email@example.com> |
| Home page: http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~bgjenero/ |
| "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to |
| depend greatly on our own point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi, ROTJ |