On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Philip Reynolds wrote:

> Line 262 of bootstrap should be changed to read ``uname -m'' instead
> of ``uname -p''.

Yes.

> Currently I'm evaluating pkgsrc for use in ekkoBSD as a replacement
> for the native OpenBSD ports. How receptive are you to new
> platforms?

Sounds good to me. A new platform is fine.

> The one major advantage we see in pkgsrc is that one of it's goals
> is for the packages to build on different systems. As far as I can
> see that means that the maintainership of individual ports (or
> packages as you call them) does not have to be directly handled by
> us. It gives us a set of usable programs that should compile on our
> system with minimum effort. This is completely under the presumption
> that NetBSD/pkgsrc agrees to support our platform, which I hope
> happens.

I also use pkgsrc for my Linux systems -- that was I don't have to
directly handle all the maintainership of individual ports too.

> 1) How receptive are you to naming ekkoBSD as being directly
> supported?
>
> 2) If you do not wish to support ekkoBSD, would you be averse to us
> maintaining a separate patchset, but using your packages?

It will be easier for pkgsrc team and for you, if we officially support
ekkoBSD. (That was we don't have to try to keep up to date with each
other or conflict with each other.)

Please share your advice and patches here.

If you have a ekkoBSD test/build machine, I'll be glad to assist with any
porting issues.

   Jeremy C. Reed
   http://bsd.reedmedia.net/