Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:44:55 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu Cc: FreeBSD-Ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tcl Message-ID: <199706250044.RAA14758@vader.cs.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970624202945.22918B-100000@Journey2.mat.net> (message from Chuck Robey on Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:30:50 -0400 (EDT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* First beta is out. There's a port, too, not yet committed. If it follows the rules, please commit it by all means. Don't forget the "default" target in the Makefile (see tk41, I'm not sure why it's missing in tk42, it should be there without a dependency from "post-install"). That way a user who wants it to be the default can do so by just typing "make default". * I just don't * see the necessity of making all the different versions live together. I * can't imagine the necessity. Have you tried building all the packages? ;) The problem is not tcl/tk themselves, but the ports that depend on them. If you have ports arbitrarily overwriting files for other ports, it will be impossible to maintain our package collection. Also, the main reason for this was to ease the transition from one version to another. Maybe for a hacker like you it doesn't matter, but for users who don't know how to hack ports to use whatever version they have, this is the only way to get ports that require different base tcl/tk to peacefully coexist. Listen, we've gone through this before. I don't want to sound harsh, but unless you come up with a method to make the package build process manageable, there really isn't anything I can do about it. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706250044.RAA14758>