prominent set of packages?

[Jan Šmydke <jan.smydke%jh-inst.cas.cz@localhost>]

1. Hello to everyone,

2. please don't kill me!

3. I don't like - it's just BAD - that pkgsrc-2010Q4@amd64 - THE STABLE
BRANCH OF PKGSRC - does fail to provide misc/openoffice3 (it did work
in 2010Q3)

see the build report
http://nyftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/packages/reports/2010Q4/NetBSD-5.0.2-x86_64/20110126.1853/meta/report.html

4. I drop counting all the points why (3) is bad  as I think
there are too many of them and are obvious ... (the issue generally
does not concern only that particular piece of software)

5. I, IMHO, would (stupidly) expect from a respected OS to guarantee
in some minimal extent that after a stable-branch update a user would
not end up with a broken system if it used to work so far.

I would expect that if such a package in CURRENT fails to build again -
it shouldn't get to STABLE and other problematic packages
should be kept at their usable state (no need to have the newest
version breaking sth important).

6. It's an uneasy question which set of packages should be guarded as
"prominent" or the most important. But at least if SOME list is given,
everybody can decide if he/she is going to invest time in pkgsrc.

I am talking about NetBSD x86, amd64 - the very basic platforms at
least.

7. What do YOU think about it?

Thank you very much for your opinions,

Jan Šmydke