>> Anyone who has religious objections to how a package is organized can
>> build and install the thing themselves.
>
>Agreed.  So, for packages, if I'm going to provide them (and be allowed
>to provide them), they're going to be /usr/local.  :>
>

	I also agree. The question is not to have packages or not. The
question is how to have them. Whoever don't like packages, just
don't get them...

>Just a little reminder, there are -no- files (i.e. "find . -type f") in
>my /usr/local/{bin,etc,lib,man} trees, but instead, symlinks back to
>/usr/local/install/<app>/{bin,etc,lib,man}.

	Hey, pretty much like we do it here!!!

>
>If someone were to ask me, "May I have your xpm set for NetBSD/i386?",
>I'd simply go to /usr/local/install, tar up the directory 'xpm-3.4g', and
>give them that.  About 60 seconds of work.  About 120 seconds for emacs or
>xemacs, and only longer because they have a couple more files.  ;>
>Then the user can either just drop them into /usr/local, or if they
>structure things like I do, they can drop it into /usr/local/install and
>symlink it back.

	Agreed. The main problem we have found with this approach is
when you want to share code for different OS/arch. That's why
we have also /mix/share/install (or /usr/local/share/install).

		Jesus.

--
Jesus M. Gonzalez Barahona         | addr.:  c/ Butarque, 15
Grupo de Sistemas y Comunicaciones |         28911 Leganes, Spain
Departamento de Informatica        | tel: +34 1 624 94 58
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid   | fax: +34 1 624 94 30
e-mail: jgb@gsyc.inf.uc3m.es       | www: http://ordago.gsyc.inf.uc3m.es/~jgb