From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Apr 11 16:01:02 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA27683
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puma.dyn.ml.org ([206.31.56.56])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA27670
          for <FreeBSD-Ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from mrr@localhost) by puma.dyn.ml.org (8.8.4/8.8.2) id SAA25148; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 18:57:43 -0400 (EDT)
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
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.3.95.970411165729.31522A-100000@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970411185553.20934B-100000@puma.dyn.ml.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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 ...