> I was wondering.  Why do we install imported code into /usr/pkg?
> Most code thinks it lives in /usr/local.  So for example, pulling
> in ical is a pain, since it thinks tcl/tk is in /usr/local and we
> have it in /usr/pkg.  ANd while we are at it.  Why do we put ports
> into /usr/pkgsrc vs /usr/ports?

In the NetBSD world, a "port" is a machine upon which NetBSD runs.  So
we have an alpha port, an i386 port etc.

We have taken our packages collection from the FreeBSD ports collection
however, and I like to think that we've improved upon it.

If you'd like your packages to go into /usr/local, then set LOCALBASE
to /usr/local, either in the environment or /etc/mk.conf. We don't use
/usr/local for our packages because it was decided that /usr/local was
for binaries local to either the machine or the site, and not for us to
muck about with. Whatever, it's shown up a surprising number of places
where /usr/local is either hardcoded or assumed.

And it's /usr/pkgsrc, not /usr/pkg/src, because it's like othersrc and
xsrc, and to avoid some admin problems with /usr/pkg/src.

Pulling in ical is not a pain if you use the package system:

(cd /usr/pkgsrc/misc/ical ; make && make install)