From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Feb  3 16:32:36 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA05266
          for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:32:36 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (ala-ca36-04.ix.netcom.com [207.93.42.196])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA05258
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:32:32 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.8/8.6.9) id QAA01837; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199802040032.QAA01837@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com
CC: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <17118.886521491@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Subject: Re: Hmmmm! Now what?
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe freebsd-ports"

 * > And what's going to happen when tcl/tk gets updated and are
 * > incompatible with the previous version again?
 * 
 * Then anyone using "wish" will simply have to adjust or go to
 * a more specific invocation of wish.  As it stands now, the
 * ports that invoke "wish" are *completely* broken, so it can't
 * get much worse than what we have now. :)

I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about ports.  As it is now,
the tree contains ports that were written by people with old tk
installations (oh, the horror! ;), and that's the reason why those
ports are broken.

Anyway, I think Eivind's suggestion solves the problem for both cases.

Satoshi