Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:51:36 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: smace@metal-mail.neosoft.com, gpalmer@freefall.cdrom.com, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tcl/tk/tclX/dp/incr-tcl/etc Message-ID: <199504280751.AAA15760@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <386.798958720@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* In the long run, I expect the line between packages and the ports * collection to blur into meaninglessness. At that point, I think * Satoshi will have to determine whether or not the "mission statement" * for the ports collection has changed! Gosh, I sure am carrying a lot on my shoulders or what?!? ;) Anyway, I certainly won't object someone trying to make an interesting "combined tcl/tk/tclX port" that can run everything in the tcl/tk world. Go ahead and add it, the more choices we give to the user, the better. Please don't change the existing tcl/tk/tclX ports though. They should be the orthogonal projection of the original software on our operating system (the principle of least suprise, or something like that), and the port shouldn't try to do something too "fancy" that may confuse users if they're still going with their original names. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504280751.AAA15760>