Is the name set in stone yet ?

A while ago (>six months), the OpenBSD project met with similar
considerations, and we put out a variation on the same scheme.
Namely, our ports now mention
PERMIT_{PACKAGE,DISTFILES}_{CDROM,FTP}
to mean almost the same thing.

The only semantic difference is that it is reversed (we set
PERMIT_XXX_YYY to Yes to mean that it's allowed to put the package
on the CD/FTP site) and that we tend to insist all ports include accurate
PERMIT_* information...

So, as we've put this information on all our ports already, we're a bit
loathe to go back and change the name everywhere.

Since the addition to NetBSD is fairly recent, maybe you could still
reconsider the name ? Just so, as to avoid gratuitous drift between
both systems.


(Even though our ports systems are not equivalent, I try to avoid gratuitous
drift when I implement new functionalities, to wit the PKGPATH name which I 
added recently. The implementation is somewhat different from NetBSD, but
I chose the same name because it holds the same information).

I am not subscribed to tech-pkg@, but I read the archive regularly...
-- 
	Marc Espie		
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'