On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:57:32AM +0900, sen_ml@eccosys.com penned:

> Doesn't the following from http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html:

[...]

> give the impression that non-binary NetBSD packages are fine?  

Yes and no...

> My understanding is that all a non-binary package contains is
> instructions for downloading, patching, compiling, and (de)installing.
> It doesn't contain modified source or binaries -- it doesn't even
> contain the original source code.  I do not see how the two are
> incompatible.

Well, have a look at the this thread and follow its argument(which
gets a bit unclear down the road), but nevertheless:

http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archive/openbsd-ports/200108/msg00461.html

(Sub: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?)

> It certainly helps to have packages from an administrative
> perspective.  If several people are using the software, it seems silly
> to duplicate the effort.  But we all know this already ;-)

Of-course;-)

> I want no such thing -- I'm not convinced there is a problem.

Are you changing any style which as per DJB is unauthorized? I remember
seeing an e-mail where DJB refused to help a FreeBSD'er as he'd
installed the package from the FreeBSD ports. Here's an excerpt:

(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=djbdns&m=99672234530662&w=2)

D. J. Bernstein wrote:
| ``The port'' is unauthorized and unsupported. It does not correctly
| install daemontools. Remove it, and do the installation properly:
|
|   http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/install.html
|
| Then complain to the author of ``the port.''

I'd check thread above before concluding...;-).Anyway, my intention in
this case is entirely to stop this from happening again some time down the
road in NetBSD packages...

Rgds

-Kevin

-- 
Age before beauty; and pearls before swine.
		-- Dorothy Parker