> 
> > > I for one would be quite willing to support and buy binary packages
> > > (provided they were, in fact, professional quality).
> > 
> > Thinking back over the binary packages I've seen (yes, I have worked
> > with them - at work) and the source packages I've seen, and I compare
> > the high end of the quality spectrum for the binary packages with the
> > low end of the quality spectrum for the source packages...I'll take the
> > source package.
        From what I've seen so far in this discussion, it seems as if a large
part of having a group of packages would be having precompiled binaries AND
source available.  So the quality of the binary IS the quality of the source.
(This of course fails when we don't have the source, but it seems like those
would be discouraged)
        Also, someone (sorry don't remeber who)  mentioned the possibility of
trojan horses in the binaries.  What about trojan horses in source?  Ah, but
you can read the source, so how about making sure that if you compile the
standard source you'll end up with exactly the packaged binary?

eric
haszlaki@uiuc.edu