Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] official version of netatalk

From: "Steven N. Hirsch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 12:04:54 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Andrew McNabb wrote:

> Will there be any effort to make the asun version of netatalk standard?  I
> noted that in the brand-new Linux 2.2-pre kernel, the currently-standard
> version of netatalk is known to not work.  Since the updated version is
> now the only working one, it would be less confusing to end users to make
> it official.

I doubt anyone would disagree.  However, since the University of Michigan
owns the copyright it's up to them.  Last I heard, Wesley stated that they
could not and would not incorporate Adrian's work due to licensing issues.

Has anything changed in this area?

---

From: Marc Matteo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:52:17 -0800

No RedHat does *not* include netatalk, in any form.

There is an asun version in Red Hat's Contrib Net as well as a couple of
other RPM builds but none of those are "official" Red Hat.

Marc
> ----------
> From: 	Andrew McNabb
> Sent: 	Monday, January 4, 1999 11:25 AM
> To: 	[email-masked]
> Cc: 	Harry Zink; [email-masked]
> Subject: 	Re: [netatalk-admins] official version of netatalk
> 
> I recently noticed that many linux distributions already include an asun
> netatalk package (Caldera, Redhat, & maybe others).
> 
> 
> On 4 Jan 1999, William P. McGonigle wrote:
> 
> > I recently changed my Netatalk FAQ-O-Matic to indicate the asun version
> as
> > being of preference. 
> > 
> > The trick, of course, is getting the users to RTFM.  There's a pointer
> to my
> > page in the kernel source, I think, but, that's not the audience we need
> to
> > reach.
> > 
> > I noticed netatalk.org is registed but doesn't have www registered.  I'd
> be
> > willing to virtual-host www as the FAQ-O-Matic if Wes wants it.
> > 
> > -Bill
> > 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
>                 Andrew McNabb
>              Argus Systems Group
>           [email-masked]
> ----------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Harry Zink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:52:03 -0800

>Right now it's a small link in the patches page.  The version that people
>see and will try out will not be functional under 2.2.

Nor does the present version include fixes for many problems under 
current versions of the MacOS - asun's version does.

Having it hidden away under a small link on the patches page might fit 
certain political needs, but it in no way helps the project as the users 
that will first try it will receive a version that is, in essence, 
broken, and feature-poor.

The regular result is those users either abadoning it, or inundating 
newsgroups with questions, the regular answer being "get the latest 
version from ....."

>I think that it
>would be important to make this information very noticeable.

NSS!

What do we honestly think are the chances of that happening?

Harry

---

From: Harry Zink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:52:44 -0800

>I noticed netatalk.org is registed but doesn't have www registered.  I'd be

What would honestly be the chances of that happening?

Harry

---

From: Marc Matteo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:21:09 -0800

>willing to virtual-host www as the FAQ-O-Matic if Wes wants it.

I think that would be a stellar idea!  If Wes is open to it, running a
"www.netatalk.org" site would be a big service.

Such a site could include links to the various HOWTO and help sites as well
as links to RPMS, debs and what not (Solaris packages anyone :)).

I would put effort into maintaining if no one else will.

Marc