>I *really* like the idea of a /usr/pkgs/foo structure with symlinks.
>That way if you remove a package it is a directory and anything
>symlinked to it.  And it allows one directory to be sup'd or nfs
>mounted and packages installed as desired.

	I also like it. But for the name, I prefer /usr/lcoal/install.
Or anyway, something living under /usr/local. These are my reasons:

1. I think we are beggining to have to much dirs in /usr. /usr/local
is there, not much used by the usual O.S.s, is the place where symlinks
are in this schema... So, I think /usr/local is better than /usr/pkgs
(that will suppose having two places with non-OS things, for instance,
when you are backing up, or when you are tarring thing for home...).

2. I prefer install to pkgs (e.g., /usr/local/install to /usr/local/pkgs)
because things to put there are *installed* packages. You also
have distribution packages, you need a place for building and
testing them... Some years ago we had 
/usr/local/pakages/{install,test,distrib}, but experience showed 
the names were too large, and we moved to /usr/local/{install,test,distrib}.

	Ay comments?

		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