Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>
To:        "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Cc:        dmaddox@scsn.net, David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>, Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued 
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.970802232349.381A-100000@Journey2.mat.net>
In-Reply-To: <15692.870549801@time.cdrom.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> >     Most of this argument is just silly.  Even the most vehement anti-
> > bloatists don't consider perl to be "an evil, bloated monster"; they just
> > consider _it's inclusion in the base distribution_ to be AEBM.  While you
> 
> I don't see the difference from the POV of this discussion so this
> paragraph of yours doesn't really parse for me.
> 
> >     In any case, I see none of this bloatist v. antibloatist propaganda
> > as cogent here.  Tcl should not be part of the base system because it
> 
> It's imminently cogent - this is NOT just a technical issue, it's
> an emotional one, and if you think that all software decisions are
> made on purely technical merits then I have a certain tower in Paris
> which I could make you a _great_ deal on. ;-)

Just want one clarification.  Most of you who've talked with me know I am
not one of the anti-bloatists (I like _big_ disks), so I want to make sure
that having tcl out of the tree is not singularly associated with being an
anti-bloatist.  Everyone knows that tcl and tk are like siamese twins,
bodily joined, and only separated at great risk.  Don't tell me that we
can't have tk in the tree, I know it requires X, and I'm not suggesting
that.  I'm saying that tcl requires tk, and if we can't have tk, we
mustn't have tcl.  All the other BSD environments are very friendly to tcl
applications, so why does FreeBSD have to have such a tcl unfriendly
environment?  If we didn't have tcl ports, the complaint level would be
even higher.

It just seems like a scene from Catch-22.  Why is FreeBSD a hard system to
build tcl apps on?  Because we like tcl ... does that make sense?

This argument is not really centered on being bloatist, at least not
totally.  I would fight taking perl out of the kernel (I want perl5.004
brought in) but I'll be pleased to see tcl make an exit.  Might a
compromise be made, let tcl go away, in exchange for updating perl?

----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey                 | Interests include any kind of voice or data 
chuckr@eng.umd.edu          | communications topic, C programming, and Unix.
213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1  |
Greenbelt, MD 20770         | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD
(301) 220-2114              | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN!
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970802232349.381A-100000>