Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:04:26 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.co.uk> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Cc: Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca, Antoine.Beaupre@lmc.ericsson.se, alex@big.endian.de, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, richy@apple.com, libh@FreeBSD.ORG, will@physics.purdue.edu Subject: Re: packagetool.tcl Message-ID: <3790000.993056666@lobster.originative.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20010620092551G.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Wednesday, June 20, 2001 09:25:51 -0700 Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> wrote: > I'm not touching that question with an 11 foot pole. :) > > I think it's simply too early to say yet. TCL is by far the least of > libh's dependencies, and one might just as well ask the same question > about Qt or TurboVision. It may be that by the time libh is ready to > deploy, we'll have cracked the whole /usr/ports vs /usr/src modularity > problem for all I know. I'd forgotten about QT/TurboVision :-) What's been stuck in my mind the last few days was Alex saying that the libh package format was "intelligent" and used embedded tcl inside the packages to do things. That would mean that the package format itself required tcl to work at all and therefore writing a pkg management tool in another language would be impossible. Maybe I miss understood that bit. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3790000.993056666>