> In article <990825172818.ZM4246@pluto.geo.uni-koeln.de>,
> > -- 1 --
> > emul/linux/usr/bin                   Executables
> > emul/linux/usr/lib                   Library
> > emul/linux/usr/share/doc/vast_f90    Documentation
> > bin/f90 -> emul/linux/usr/bin/f90    Soft link
> 
> That's how my "mtv" package is organized.
> 
> > I personally prefer 2). Opinions?
> 
> I prefer 1. with a few more softlinks.

I hate to do this, but "me too".

Reasoning follows:

a) If I understand correctly, these are Linux executables - they
should not be in the NetBSD tree. i.e. They would not be able to
run native on NetBSD without Linux emulation, therefore they are
Linux executables.

b) We should be trying to keep things in close proximity, to enable
people to find related things.  Telling them to use pkg_info -L is
not really an option for locating files. Not unless you add pkg_info
-L support into every file manager...

c) There's "prior art".

Regards,
Alistair