To: Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com>
cc: Chris Jones <cjones@honors.montana.edu>, current-users@NetBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: XF86Setup 
In-Reply-To: Message from Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com> 
   of "Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:39:19 EDT." <Pine.NEB.3.96.980629123752.28763P-100000@like.duh.org> 
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:16:36 -0400
From: "John F. Woods" <jfw@jfwhome.funhouse.com>

> : Would it be acceptable to link XF86Setup statically against tcl/tk, so we
> : still won't have to deal with having them in the tree?
> All you need to do is install the tcl, tk, and XF86Setup pkgs, and we're
> looking into adding binary pkg installation to sysinst anyway.  "It's better
> as a pkg." 

Is it?

Would the precompiled tcl, tk, and XF86Setup packages be present on (say) the
Official NetBSD 1.4 CD-ROM?  (I would assume not, since the Official 1.3.2
CD-ROM doesn't have precompiled packages, just source (right?).)  If not,
then either the prospective NetBSD user is in for either a very slow 
installation experience (if the NetBSD CD-ROM at least includes tar files
for those packages whose tar files may be distributed by third parties), a
hideously slow installation experience (if they have to use their available
IP connection to ftp all the appropriate tar files), or a tremendously
frustrating installation experience (if they were so foolish as to assume
that purchasing a CD-ROM meant they didn't ALSO have to have an Internet
connection in order to complete the installation).

I think it would be difficult for the user to perceive that there were any
high-quality engineering decision behind either of the latter two outcomes.