NB: Not sure where to post this.. apologies if this is wrong :)

	I was compiling up -current & noticed that diskpart used 'gets()' so
	I thought - "I'll send-pr a fix" - then looked at diskpart & thought
	"Is anyone going to ever _use_ this? it doesnt seem to produce relevant 
	output for any NetBSD system"...

	If diskpart really isn't any use in a current system, and there are 
	other similar programs, does it make sense to have an 'old' directory
	in the source tree & move them across to there - with a mind to losing
	them at some (far) later date.

	Alternatively - how about modifying the system makefiles to define
	a 'minimalist' (or base) make & install targets?

	ie a Makefile could have

	BASESUBDIR = chown chroot config cron dev_mkdb inetd 
	BASENETSUBDIR = ${BASESUBDIR} arp bootpd bootpgw bootpef bootptest
	SUBDIR = ${BASENETSUBDIR} ac accton diskpart edquota gettable htable

	and then you could have a minimalist 'base' install for a single user
	non networked machine, a 'basenet' install for a networked machine,
	and a 'full' (default) installation.

	I can see people not agreeing what goes in what group, and even
	what groups exist, and I understand the view that "NetBSD is all of
	NetBSD, just just a stripped down 'toy' version", but I regard 
	this level of stripping down as leaving it fully functional in the
	appropriate environment.

	Even if this isnt implemented as suggested - having the hooks in
	the bsd mk files would be useful for people wanting to create
	different builds for different machines (which includes me :)

	Ok, so disks are getting bigger & cheaper - but I still think this
	has merit.

			David

	

 D.K.Brownlee@city.ac.uk (MIME) +44 171 477 8186  {post,host}master  (abs)
Network Analyst, UCS, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB.
 <<< Monochrome - Largest UK Internet BBS - try telnet mono.city.ac.uk >>>