Date:        Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:52:39 +0200
    From:        Juan RP <juan@xtrarom.org>
    Message-ID:  <20070720225239.903370fc.juan@xtrarom.org>

  | On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:22:53 +0200
  | Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> wrote:
  | 
  | > I'm considering the commit the local patch that CHECK_PERMS=yes
  | > automatically adds a real (bootstrap) dependency on checkperms (the
  | > package, very small) and therefore that building with
  | > PKG_DEVELOPER=yes requires that this package. Is it acceptable for
  | > others or do I have to consider more arcane ways to get it?
  | 
  | It's ok for me... I use it in all machines that I have PKG_DEVELOPER
  | set.

I had never head of it before (until package builds started failing).
[I am mor ethan a year behind on NetBSD list e-mail ...]

I use pkg_comp, which defaults PKG_DEVELOPER set - the effect is that
(almost) all pkg_comp users now need this package installed.    Something
needs to automate that (much the way the requirement for digest is automated)
whenever PKG_DEVELOPER is set.   Simply assuming that packages will
be installed is not the right way.

kre