Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 23:35:09 -0700 From: Studded <Studded@dal.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin Makefile src/lib Makefile src/etc/mtree BSD.usr.dist src Makefile.inc1 src/usr.bin/vi Makefile src/usr.bin/tclsh Makefile src/lib/libtcl Makefile Message-ID: <35F37E9D.3B9582B3@dal.net> References: <17203.905074634@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> > I'm not bitching about Tcl, I'm bitching about the necessity of
> > including it in the base system. Tcl is relatively big (comparing
>
> Then come up with a better way of having something in the "base"
> system like the new installer (which is TCL based) and the new package
> system (which is TCL based) somehow get the bits they need during a
> world build, assuming that the user may or may not have the ports
> collection on their machine (which is a reasonable assumption).
The last time this topic came up a lot of people said that the cost
of having tcl in the base was higher than the value of the new tools.
THAT is the true cost/benefit analysis. "We are adding tools that need
tcl, so we must have tcl in the base" is a red herring argument.
The fact that new tools that don't use tcl might not get written is
not a factor for me, although it may be for others.
Doug
--
*** Chief Operations Officer, DALnet IRC network ***
At Barry (a small town in south Wales) hidden cameras have had to be
installed to keep watch on the town's CCTV [Closed Circuit Television]
to record acts of vandalism against the CCTV. - Privacy Forum
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35F37E9D.3B9582B3>