The following reply was made to PR misc/30175; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, netbsd-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: misc/30175: (pf)spamd manpages inaccurate and erroneous
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:54:28 +0200

 On Fri, 13 May 2005, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
 > > 	1) Remove spamd from base and put it into pkgsrc.
 > > 	2) Audit all manpages and fix the breakage.
 > > 	3) Rename pfspamd back to spamd :-)
 
 Definitely do 2.  Possibly do 1.  Please do not do 3.
 
 > > 	Personally I would go for 1) and here's why:
 > 
 > i think it's a good idea.
 > 
 > (assuming that people don't care its name unless it's in base :-)
 
 Please do not make a (pf)spamd package that conflicts with the
 mail/spamassassin package.
 
 More generally, even if there is no conflict (yet), I wish that packages
 that installed many executables would use a common prefix to name
 them all.  Do not have the "foo" package install bin/foo, bin/bar
 and bin/baz, where bar and baz are things that ordinary users of the
 foo package will be unlikely to care about, or where the names are
 likely to conflict with other packages in the future; instead have the
 "foo" package install bin/foo, bin/foo-bar and bin/foo-baz; or perhaps
 bin/foo, libexec/foo/bar and libexec/foo/baz.
 
 There are already too many packages that install things
 under inappropriate names, and I don't want it to become
 worse.  An example that I hit a few weeks ago was
 jabberd, which installs /usr/pkg/bin/{c2s,s2s,resolver},
 instead of /usr/pkg/bin/jabberd-{c2s,s2s,resolver} or
 /usr/pkg/libexec/jabberd/{c2s,s2s,resolver}.
 
 --apb (Alan Barrett)