From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Jul 27 17:41:59 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id RAA16379
          for ports-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:41:59 -0700
Received: from forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.75])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA16369
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:41:57 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA04426; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:41:54 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 17:41:54 -0700
Message-Id: <199507280041.RAA04426@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu
CC: rsnow@legend.txdirect.net, ports@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950726112832.4348A-100000@mocha.eng.umd.edu> (message from Chuck Robey on Wed, 26 Jul 1995 11:32:25 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: Tcl 7.4 / Tk 4.0 Ports
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: ports-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

 * > By all means, yes.  However, tk4.x is not compatible with tk3.x, so I
 * > recommend you call it "tk4" or something.  That way we can have both
 * > versions.
 * > 
 * > >From what I've heard, tcl7.4 is just an upgrade of tcl7.3.  If that is 
 * > true, we can replace the current tcl port.
 * 
 * This is just a reinforcement.  The new tcl/tk versions aren't compatbile 
 * with the old ones, and many of the existing applications will fail under 
 * the new ones.  I haven't seen a lot of activity (yet) by the writers of 
 * extensions, to make them compatible with the new versions.  The last 
 * thing in the world you would want to do would be to replace the old ones 
 * with the new ones, because this would break all your applications.
 * 
 * Yes, I agree the ports should be done, but Satoshi's right, they MUST be 
 * kept separate from the existing ones.

Um, we are not in complete agreement here, read what I typed. ;)

So, is tcl7.4 incompatible with tcl7.3?

Satoshi