On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 01:00:04AM +1030, wulf@ping.net.au wrote:
> > Having said all of that, I'd really like to see gis packages, and,
> > yes, if we get a critical mass (there are currently 8 packages in the
> > ham category, which probably gives a decent rule of thumb to "critical
> > mass"), then we'll make a separate category for them. Let's start walking
> > before we can run, though, and port these packages to NetBSD...
> 
> I don't care about the critical mass, but I do care when it comes to a
> descriptive category that indicates the type of applications it hosts
> by virtue of its title. This gives those searching for a particular type of
> application a real chance to find what they are looking for. Many times
> did I search for applications only to find them in categories that
> were the least I expected. 
> 
> Do you think that 6 GIS packages are a good starting point sufficient
> to make you change your mind? There is plenty more to come with
> applications such as GRASS, MITAB etc... plus those that already exist in
> the current pkgsrc tree such as dgsip, gmt etc. If so, I will start 
> submitting packages as soons as the GIS category is created.

If we had 6 GIS packages, as I wrote above, then that would probably
be good enough, yes.

> Alternatively they are keept in my local packages source tree amongst
> many other applications that haven't found resonance and interest 
> from within the NetBSD community.

I think this is a great pity - if you keep them there, then no-one
benefits from your work. You won't find resonance or interest unless
you're prepared to give people the chance to use the things.

OTOH, I suppose we could add the "psychic:" method to the current
"http:" and "ftp:" methods we have for downloading via pkg_add(1).

Regards,
Alistair