Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:19:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, jkh@time.cdrom.com, helbig@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De, andreas@klemm.gtn.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current is currently really a mess (was: Re: Tk/Tcl broken(?)) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970805121129.21611A-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <199708050759.RAA27445@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > I don't want to sound like I'm coming down on anyone here, but if the > ports stuff was set up to be less intertwingled with the base system, > this wouldn't be so much of an issue. Doesn't something seem very wrong with saying "Ok, we're going to have Tcl in the base system, but no applications are allowed to use it."? For all the arguments about trying to keep diskspace requirements, etc. low for the sake of people running "jelly-bean 486s", this "We want Tcl, but you can't use it; you have to get a duplicate copy from ports" seems a tad ...hypocritical. To say the ports system should (dynamically?) determine if the base system's Tcl is useable is one thing, but to say the ports system should never use the base system (Tcl being the specific part of the base system under discussion) is another. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.970805121129.21611A-100000>