Thorsten Lockert <tholo@SigmaSoft.COM>  wrote:
 > True.  With a better package installer and a setup where one could get
 > a package compiled for all existing ports would be really neat!

I don't see what's wrong with the existing package installer... Granted,
it's not in the tree which it probably should be... I haven't read the 
1.1 docs but I imagine it says in there somewhere that there are packages
available and where they're located...

Now, as to why no one is contributing packages? I don't know. I have some
suspicions though:

a) BETSI certificates, while probably a good idea, provided that little
bit of extra non-incentive because it was "yet another thing to have to
figure out" on my already growing list of "things to figure out one day".

b) Most stuff builds right out of the box anyway.

c) Most NetBSD users are of a level that don't really need someone to hold
their hand and do stuff for them.. They're perfectly capable of ftp'ing 
something and typing 'make' themselves...

d) not everyone agrees on where a package needs to be installed. In fact,
I remember the discussion and not everyone agreed on the structure of 
"/usr/local" itself not to mention the group of people who didn't believe
in having a "/usr/local".

As far as having a package compiled for all existing ports.... Well, that
would require people having access to all manner of machines... Now, 
personally, I have (or at one time had) 6 different ports running in my
house, and I can tell you that it's fairly time consuming just maintaining
6 machines at -current let alone building packages... 

Personally, I'm perfectly content building my own software... I typically
like to know where it's going, what its components are and what they do.
However, I realize not everyone is like this.