From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Jul 30 04:50:18 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA25965
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA25960
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.6/8.6.9) id EAA04990; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 04:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199707301149.EAA04990@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: tg@ihf.rwth-aachen.de
CC: fenner@parc.xerox.com, dmaddox@scsn.net, tg@ihf.rwth-aachen.de,
        ports@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <87lo2pm55s.fsf@ghpc6.ihf.rwth-aachen.de> (message from Thomas Gellekum on 30 Jul 1997 08:21:19 +0200)
Subject: Re: Tk/Tcl broken(?)
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Regarding the Tcl/Tk port (etc.):

 * When I updated tix ysterday evening (comitted in the meantime) I
 * noticed that tk41 wants the tcl75 _port_, not tcl75 from the base
 * system (someone should upgrade it in 2.2-STABLE or remove it (hi,
 * phk)). tcl75 is also missing an entry in CVSROOT/modules.  Whoever
 * left this mess behind should fix it.

After the latest fiasco, I am strongly inclined to discontinue support
of -current in the ports tree, at least until the current mess with
tcl is settled.  tcl80 is BETA software at the master site, it doesn't
belong to -stable, it doesn't even belong to -current (IMO).  It
wasn't tested in the ports tree, and it doesn't even have a
corresponding tk port.

I intend fix the tk41 port to use the system tcl75 again, and have
other ports depend on tk41 (and tcl75 in the system) or tcl76/tk42.
I'll post announcements and move directories around on wcarchive (so
the ports tree won't show up under FreeBSD-current).

This is probably the right thing to do anyway.  "Ports track -current" 
made sense many years ago before we split the tree into -current and
-stable (it meant "ports are prepared for the next release"), but
maybe not now.  I intend to have the ports tree work on 2.2-stable
until the final release is out (2.2.5?), so we can have the full set
of packages ready for the next release.

Satoshi

P.S. This doesn't mean we can't put in "#if __FreeBSD_version > ..."
     type checks to make the ports compile on -current -- it's just
     that we won't go out of our way and twist our spines backwards to 
     support having things like tcl80 in the tree.