I am afraid I  must correct some things that have been said  on this list :-)
First, LISTSERV is going to have a  package concept of course, but keep in mind
that the  code for normal operations  isn't even finished yet!  Please leave me
some time to breathe :-)
 
  Second, Netserv  IS going to have  a package system 'soon'.  I discussed this
with Bert about 1 month ago or so, and we came to the conclusion that a complex
package system with  special commands for maintenance of the  package and such-
like (c/suchlike/GRAND-like/ ;-) ) is not  really necessary. However we did not
agree  on the  implementation of  the thing.  Bert wanted  a new  GETPKGE xxxxx
command while I preferred GET XXXXX PACKAGE. In Bert's approach of the problem,
XXXX PACKAGE was a file which listed  all the components of the package (so far
it's ok with me) but users should  be able to retrieve it individually with the
normal GET command. In my approach the  package file had a filetype of $PACKAGE
and could be obtained via GET while  "GET XXXX PACKAGE" sent the whole bunch of
files. Oh well, metaphysics ;-)
 
  Please note that the  official reason why the NIC did not  move to NETSERV is
that "it  does not have  a package concept". Also  note that NICSERVE  does not
have a  package system either. However,  it is being modified  ("right now") to
implement  such a  feature. Considering  that "right  now" was  1 year  ago, we
may seriously question  the programming ability of the authors  of NICSERVE ;-)
 
  I'd like to make  it clear that LISTSERV is not  intended to replace NETSERV.
First, Netserv provides a lot of  'management' functions that are not provided,
and will  never be provided  by LISTSERV. Second,  all the NETSERVs  are clones
(for the  best!) while each  postmaster can configure  his LISTSERV as  he sees
fit. That means  the LISTSERVs will become  a real mess I guess  ;-) Third, the
NETSERVs are very  reliable because they are automatically  maintained by their
author. If  something goes wrong with  Netserv, Bert fixes the  problem, does a
PUT of the corresponding  exec, and 10 minutes later all the  servers are up to
date (*cough*  make it '10  to 10,000 minutes' :-(  ). LISTSERV is  supposed to
implement only basic server functions to provide list owners with a means where
by information files/programs  can be communicated to members of  a given list,
while the  LISTSERV management  can make  general info  files (like  the future
equivalent of "LISTSERV  GROUPS") available to everybody. NETSERV  is a network
information server, LISTSERV is a general  purpose one. You could create a list
of Shakespeare fans and  store the Complete works of the Master  of poetry on a
LISTSERV  while I  doubt Bert  would ever  consider placing  it on  NETSERV ;-)
 
  However, I have implemented tools in 1.5c to ease LISTSERV-to-NETSERV communi
cation. Notes received  from a Netserv userid are forwarded  to the postmaster.
notes sent to a Netserv userid are automatically re-routed to the corresponding
contact persons (eg 'To:  NETSERV@BEARN c/o Bruno Durasse <DURASSE@BNANDP11>').
When I have time I will develop a  set of local commands that will allow you to
configure your  LISTSERV to provide  a sort of  'cache disk' for  Netserv files
(to avoid multiple GETs and relieve the  network). I had started a special ser-
ver called NETINFO to  perform this task before I wrote  LISTSERV, and since it
turns out that I will probably never have time to write NETINFO, I will provide
the required  tools in LISTSERV  to implement it  at least partially  because I
feel it  is an  important function, especially  for US nodes  where there  is a
definite lack of host Netservs... :-(
 
Time for dinner...
 
  Eric