Following up on myself, here is my own opinion on how we should name our
support for various platforms.  All attributes are based on the latest
released pkgsrc branch.

  o Unknown

    Nobody has ever reported success/failure for any pkgsrc release on
    the particular architecture.

  o Unverified (previously <x> support in pkgsrc-<x>)

    Architecture has not been verified for current branch, provide
    details of level of support for last known status.

  o Initial

    The platform is able to successfully bootstrap.

  o Basic

    The platform can bootstrap and build a basic set of packages (perl,
    coreutils, can be decided upon later).

  o Full

    The platform is able to build at least 1,000 (2,000?) packages.

In addition, the tag "official" is given to architectures where binary
packages are provided on ftp.netbsd.org, and "community" to those
provided by a non-developer.

The names/tags can be bikeshedded about ad nauseum, you can have
numbered tiers instead if you want, but the basic premise remains.  I
think this would give Joe User a much clearer understanding of what
level of support he can expect pkgsrc to give him on his chosen
platform.

-- 
Jonathan Perkin                                     The NetBSD Project
http://www.perkin.org.uk/                       http://www.netbsd.org/