Two things:

1)  Using pkg_info would be a HUGE win for me - it would solve dozens
of problems that I run into all the time.  "pkg_info --short name" for 
a short ("name.0.0.1"/"No it's not installed") answer, along 
with a 1/0 (0/1?) exit code would be wonderful, and it would make the 
conversion of the .mk file really easy.

2)  I always use 'make reinstall' instead of 'make install'.  It doesn't
work from subordinate packages, but it works OK for the main packages.

David Brownlee wrote:
> 
>         (ccing tech-pkg as its more relevant there)
>         Is anyone strongly opposed to the concept of using pkg_info
>         instead of .install_done? If not, are any of the proponents
>         willing to come up with the appropriate diffs? :)
> 
>                 David/absolute
>                                        -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --
> 
> On Mon, 22 May 2000, Martin Husemann wrote:
> 
> > > The rest of the status files, like .build_done etc, are fine, it's
> > > just the .install_done that annoys me.
> >
> > Me too! I got used to "rm work/.install done; make install" after building
> > the pkg on the fastest host in the NFS cloud, then installing it everywhere.
> > No, NFS sharing /usr/pkg is not an option here; there are (relatively) slow
> > remote connections and temporary ones involved.
> >
> >
> > Martin
> >