>Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:46:14 -0500 (EST)
>From: Jim Wise <jimw@numenor.turner.com>
>
>On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Mike Long wrote:
>
>> I would not consider the contents of the ports tree to be 'vendor
>> code'.  The ports tree and binary packages are created by users for
>> other users.  None of it is maintained by the NetBSD project (although
>> the people who do maintain it may also work on NetBSD), so it isn't
>> NetBSD code.  /usr/local is the proper place for it.
>
>As someone else pointer out, /usr/local is the place for *local* code...
>(That is, code built on site.)  I do _not_ want to count on the package
>tree never conflicting with my taste in installed packages...

I don't think you understood my point.  The ports mechanism and binary
packages are an *optional* alternative to building third-party
software yourself.  If a package conflicts with your preferences, you
are always free to build it yourself instead.
-- 
Mike Long <mike.long@analog.com>     <URL:http://www.shore.net/~mikel>
VLSI Design Engineer         finger mikel@shore.net for PGP public key
Analog Devices, CPD Division          CCBF225E7D3F7ECB2C8F7ABB15D9BE7B
Norwood, MA 02062 USA       (eq (opinion 'ADI) (opinion 'mike)) -> nil