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
> proceedures.

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
uVAXII?

> 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 <bgjenero@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>              |
|  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  |