From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Nov 9 08:42:32 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA07852 for ports-outgoing; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from po1.glue.umd.edu (po1.glue.umd.edu [129.2.128.44]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA07846 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from maryann.eng.umd.edu (maryann.eng.umd.edu [129.2.103.22]) by po1.glue.umd.edu (8.8.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA12581; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:42:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by maryann.eng.umd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA17291; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:42:21 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: maryann.eng.umd.edu: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:42:19 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@maryann.eng.umd.edu To: Satoshi Asami cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: blt2.1 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I was looking (as asked) to see if blt could be taught not to use the itcl stuff. This isn't so hard to do, but I'm thinking that it's not completely clear to me that doing that is the right thing to do. Understand that itcl (for all systems outside FreeBSD) wants to replace the user's tcl libraries with it's own set, where the stock tcl has been patched to allow for the new namespaces features. These features are well thought of, and in fact are to a great extent included in the new tcl libs, version 7.6, that have not yet been brought into FreeBSD. I have stopped itcl from replacing our libtcl stuff, which I'm not sure is right. itcl installs it's own tclsh, which has the namespaces features, replacing the tclsh from FreeBSD. I can stop blt from doing it also, but it seems to me that doing this is hamstringing the itcl features, virtually eliminating their effect. If someone builds itcl, shouldn't itcl work? Understand that itcl doesn't sit beside tcl, it replaces it. I'll make blt ignore itcl if I get a couple comments that people really want that to happen. I wouldn't do it myself, I think. Personally, I'm beginning to think that itcl should be allowed to install it's own tcl libs in /usr/local/include. I don't think anything at all is lost, and the namespaces features are gained. I'm not going to be stubborn about this, but I don't want to do something that seems wrong without at least a little discussion about it. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------