Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:57:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael R. Rudel" <mrr@puma.dyn.ml.org> To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>, FreeBSD Ports <FreeBSD-Ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New itcl available Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970411185553.20934B-100000@puma.dyn.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.95.970411165729.31522A-100000@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> IMO (flame me if you want) Tcl shouldn't be included in the main > distribution, specially since it's (almost) useless without Tk and it's an > old version. I understand there are problems with the multiple versions of > Tcl/Tk, but importing Tcl simply moves the problem inside. Tcl may also be > small, but it has no sense to include it in the base distribution. > Ports team: please, let's move again to the old scheme in which everyone > chooses the version of Tcl/Tk they want to use. > I would even accept drastic solutions, like installation scripts that nuke > all previous versions of Tcl/Tk. > > --Pedro. > > I have to agree with you there ... As I stated in a message about itcl, this would make it a major pain in the ass to port itcl as I stated there. - Michael R. Rudel - mrr@puma.dyn.ml.org or mrr@forbidden-donut.anet-stl.com - Wizard: DeltaMUSH: lsds.com 4208 - - There is no pain, you are receding ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970411185553.20934B-100000>