Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 21:15:55 -0700 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <480.835157755@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:23:40 %2B0930." <199606190353.NAA28433@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What's going on here is that I'm forcing the issue. (In this entire thread, remember that it holds true for all of src/gnu, vi, and anyother major third-party/contrib component. !) No I don't think it is optimal to import the uuencoded tarball, but it sure as hell beats importing the tree. Why ? 1. People will have to make their changes as patches this way. 2. It makes communication with the author(s) easier that we know what our changes actually are. 3. It makes it easier for people to experiment with a never version on their own. 4. It takes up LESS space. 5. It makes Makefiles easier to make. The discussion ? well, I have tried to start it several times, and nobody seemed to care, so they obviously cannot feel too much about it ? I would prefer if we put the files in $CVSROOT/foobar for some value of foobar and made a sup-target for them. They could live there as bare binaries, not uuencoded, if CVS would not get confused about it. I would prefer this dir to be inside the $CVSROOT so that people don't loose them by accident but I'm not religious about it. That's what is going on! I hope Peter will import the new GCC the same way, nomatter what we decide to do with the tarballs. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?480.835157755>