> Since someone brought it up, I thought I'd mention what I would like
> to see in a ported software archive.
> 
> ...
> 
> 3) Everything should install in /usr/local.  I could be convinced that
> some other hierarchy is appropriate, but there should not be more than
> one hierarchy for the ported software as a whole.

	Well, I agree that binaries should install somehwere
under /usr/local, but as I said, not *exactly* in 
/usr/local/{bin,man,lib}. I again prefer links, life is easier
when deleting packages or upgrading to new versions if you
use separate directories for aech package.

> 
> 4) Converting everything to use the NetBSD build scheme is a short
> road to Hell, as that makes it much harder to import new versions of
> packages.  On the other hand, some kind of coherent build scheme would
> be nice, even if it only allows for `make all; make install; make
> clean'.  I've seen a number of schemes for this in the past, and
> almost all of them involve far too much hair for my taste.

	I agree. I think we should make things a easy as possible,
specilly when tracking new versions. And easiest way is just
touch configure, or makefile or whatever for specifying the dir
for installation, and run make. 

> 
> 5) It would be useful to integrate this with the NetBSD install
> system.  The current mechanism allows for optional installation of
> packages, but not deinstallation.  It also has no way of running a
> post-install or post-deinstall script to munge other system files.
> Both of these are (unfortunately) necessary for a complete optional
> install mechanism.  They should be relatively easy to do.

	Could someone talk a bit about "the NetBSD install"? I'm
still stuck with NetBSD 0.9a, and don't what is that... Anyway,
I feel it will be necessary a deinstallation tool, and thins like
running scripts before and after installing/deinstalling.

> 
> 
> All told, it should certainly be done, but this is not an offer to do
> it.  B-)  I'm willing to look over ported packages as my time permits,
> though, and I'm willing to help define the layout and installation
> tools.
> 

	Well, maybe somebody should sumarize the present discussion,
and interested users could send comments... Specially if we are 
talking about a schema for binaries, it is important to agree in
some things a installation dirs. If not, all those packages that
depend on where they are installed to work properly will be
a true headache...

	By the way, in other message, somebody talked about using
FreeBSD's pkg*. I tried it sometime ago, and I stopped using it
because of it put everything directly in /usr/local/{bin,lib,...}.
See avobe, I don't think that is the best thing we can do. Anyway,
it can have changed in the meantime. And of course it could
be a good starting point...

	(Does anybody know how deal with this Linuxed people?)



-- 
Jesus M. Gonzalez Barahona    | Universidad Carlos III (Madrid, Spain)
tel: +34 1 624 94 58          | e-mail: jgb@inf.uc3m.es
fax: +34 1 624 94 30          |         jgb@ordago.uc3m.es
(Sometimes our headers are not o.k., please reply to any of this addresses)
.From within Universidad Carlos III, you can better use jgb@ordago.uc3m.es