Mark Perkins wrote:
>For some platforms a bulk build is an unreasonably high barrier, I think.  
>In
>particular, I (personally) consider NetBSD/mac68k a supported platform.  
>There
>is no regular bulk build (the last one was in ~2001 according to a *quick*
>search of the archives), but I can build the packages I need.  And a bulk
>build for mac68k would be mostly wasted effort IMO (I don't want/need/care
>about the monster pkgs like kde, gnome, etc., on mac68k).

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>Well, what Jan said. More bluntly: "Good luck". I want to avoid the
>illusional that everything works fine. I don't want to kill support code
>or anything like that. If it works now, chances are it will continue,
>but it can also stop and noone knows.

Given the intent is to inform users about what's known to be reliable,
perhaps there could be two tiers of verification, the second of which
would not be termed "supported", but rather, "recently known to work
(at least to some degree), though without developer focus currently"?
(A more elegant way of phrasing that eludes me at present.)

The second tier could be based upon users sending in results from
pkgsurvey.  Personally, I can confirm that pkgsrc works well for me on
NetBSD/hp700, for what I want it to do.  I agree that doesn't mean it
would work well for others, but it may be useful for potential users to
see that it is in use, referenced in the same place they would look up
the supported platforms.  (Perhaps this second tier could be
revalidated once a quarter, with a request to users coinciding with
pkgsrc branching.)

For me, it's a moot point if a given platform is labelled supported,
I would try and use pkgsrc on it regardless, and feed back any fixes
I can make.  But other users may (understandably) be less obstinate
than me, so I agree it's useful to specify what is known to work.  (Or
including my suggestion, specify and qualify.)

Dave