>Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 01:08:56 -0500 (EST)
>From: Jim Wise <jimw@numenor.turner.com>
>
>On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Jaromir Dolecek wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty satisfied w/ /usr/local. It's a "standard" and most
>> packages take it as default already. On my local system i'm
>> using local just for few programs and most packages are in
>> /packages/{run|share|share_rw}/PACKAGE/, but there have to be some
>> "standard" place and /usr/local is one of the best candidates.
>
>Just to throw my 2c in...  I think it is a poor idea to install
>distributed code into /usr/local.  The point of /usr/local has always
>been to seperate out code put together on site (including ported on
>site) from vendor code...   If this distinction is lost, I, at least,
>will need to set up a new place for truly local binaries...

I would not consider the contents of the ports tree to be 'vendor
code'.  The ports tree and binary packages are created by users for
other users.  None of it is maintained by the NetBSD project (although
the people who do maintain it may also work on NetBSD), so it isn't
NetBSD code.  /usr/local is the proper place for it.
-- 
Mike Long <mike.long@analog.com>     <URL:http://www.shore.net/~mikel>
VLSI Design Engineer         finger mikel@shore.net for PGP public key
Analog Devices, CPD Division          CCBF225E7D3F7ECB2C8F7ABB15D9BE7B
Norwood, MA 02062 USA       (eq (opinion 'ADI) (opinion 'mike)) -> nil