From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 22 17:06:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA16303 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:06:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hwcn.org (ac199@james.hwcn.org [199.212.94.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA16295 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:06:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hoek@hwcn.org) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by hwcn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA14176; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 20:02:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 20:02:12 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek To: Luigi Rizzo cc: Tim Vanderhoek , dmlb@ragnet.demon.co.uk, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jseger@freebsd.scds.com Subject: Re: how many tk version do oyu need... In-Reply-To: <199802221900.UAA04874@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > as if a port uses gmake instead of pmake. Sometimes it's easiest > > for us to correctly fix the problem with patches, sometimes it's > > easier to load an emulation module (gmake, in the last example). > [...] > ton of files, and emulation is not really a ppossibility (or, at least, > unless tk has a backward compatible mode... but i doubt it.. The "emulation module[s]" I was indirectly referring to were the tk41 and tk42 ports. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message