> > I think that this would better be done with a kind of meta-package system.
> > Well, second-best.  *Best* is just to inform users about pkgsrc and let
> > them do what they like, IMHO.  (^&
>
> Agreed. Are the meta-packages in pkgsrc/meta-pkgs the kind of meta-package
> you mean? if so, we already have the meta-package system.

No, a meta(package-system).  That is, if you're going to make a new
installer that plops all of this junk (not an entirely neutral choice of
words; (^&) onto the user's hard disk, *presumably* there will be some
kind of interaction with the user.  This would amount to selecting from
broad categories of packages, and/or specific packages.

You can just direct them to the pkgsrc system, though; if it's too
fine-grained for beginners (I doubt it, but will entertain it for the sake
of argument), then create more meta-packages (here, I *do* mean what we
already have).  I don't see the need to create a restricted, but fancy,
point-and-click package installer layered on top of the existing package
system.

(And if it's not point-and-click, or doesn't offer the user choices and
flexibility, then I *really* don't see the point of not just using
pkgsrc.)


> > As for setting up X: It's *very* easy under XFree86 4.x.  At least it was
> > for me, under 4.0.  (The only problem that 4.0 really had was that it
> > generated a slightly bogus mouse configuration.  It either wanted
> > /dev/mouse instead of /dev/wsmouse, or it wanted something like a PS/2
> > mouse protocol instead of the WSmouse protocol.  If the autoconfig still
> > bungles that, you can have a short script run sed over the config to fix
> > it up.)
>
> I've used both a PS2 and a USB mouse under NetBSD-current on i386 with X
> 4.1.0 and 4.2.0 without encountering that problem. xf86cfg does the right
> thing, on my system at least.

I never used xf86cfg.  Under XFree86 4.0, the X server can actually
generate a config automatically.  The only thing that it screwed up was
the mouse config.  I imagine that they fixed that by now; it's a pretty
trivial thing.


> > XFree86 configuration probably isn't going to be a major hurdle.  I don't
> > know if the auto-configuration is anywhere near reliable enough to count
> > on it from sysinst, but it certainly could make life easier for many
> > end-users.
>
> xf86cfg is so much nicer than XF86Setup and xf86config. I think it might
> also be worth considering switching from including XFree86 3.3.6 by default
> to 4.2.0 (or whatever the latest in xsrc at the time of release is.) You
> certainly get more (and better) hardware support with X 4.

Unless XFree86 4.x now supports *all* hardware supported by 3.x, I'm not
sure that the statement about more hardware is irrefutable.  I would tend
to count supported hardware by the number of installed systems with that
type of hardware.  And, until NetBSD can do hardware accelerated 3D
graphics, the newer (expensive) cards are not really all that appealing.
(Not unless you dual-boot.)

A switch to 4.x may be worth doing even now, but I'm not all excited about
it, having run it for half a year.


  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu