From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Apr 28 00:51:46 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA02285
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:51:46 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA02278
          for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:51:44 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA15760; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:51:36 -0700
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:51:36 -0700
Message-Id: <199504280751.AAA15760@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com
CC: smace@metal-mail.neosoft.com, gpalmer@freefall.cdrom.com,
        ports@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: <386.798958720@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Subject: Re: tcl/tk/tclX/dp/incr-tcl/etc
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=)
Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * 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