Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:05:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, ache@nagual.pp.ru, ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, jkh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tk80 port or tcl installation are broken on -current Message-ID: <199801082205.PAA18401@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <14994.884221928@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jan 7, 98 05:12:08 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > * Why? It seems that things were fine until you rocked the boat with > > * a bsd.port.mk that tried to be too clever at detecting this. :) > > > > Um, did you read the message? That has nothing to do with my change, > > Jordan. > > I know, but the topic only seems to have flared up again on account of > it. :) > > Yes, I see the problem. No, I see no immediate solution that doesn't > have drawbacks of its own. Yes, I hate this entire problem and would > just as soon say "heck, just nuke TCL out of the base OS" if I had > a way of handling dist/ports dependencies currently in the tree. > The fact that I don't is why so many people are complaining that the > Handbook and FAQ have been left out of the doc dist since 2.2.2. How about treating installed system components as if they were simply preinstalled pacakges? That would let you uninstall them, or upgrade them (if you defined upgrade as "deinstall old + install new"). It would also let you upgrade systems, if you applied the same method to a "component" called "base system". ...just an old idea from SCO Xenix... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801082205.PAA18401>