Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:59:03 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu Cc: hoek@hwcn.org, FreeBSD-Ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tcl Message-ID: <199706251959.MAA16997@vader.cs.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970625151118.22918F-100000@Journey2.mat.net> (message from Chuck Robey on Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:20:22 -0400 (EDT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* > Well, perhaps Chuck is volunteering to go through all the ports * > and patch them so that they'll work with v7.5, 7.6, or 8.0, * > whichever happens to be on the installer's machine... :-) That's not the point. So we now go to 7.6. How do we go from there to 8.0? Patch EVERYTHING at the same time? When we don't even know if 8.0 is stable? What we are trying to do here is to make it easy to go from one level to another. When a new port that requires tcl/tk 8.0, we don't dumb it down to use 7.6, we make that port depend on tcl/tk 8.0. We can also change existing ports to use 8.0. When everything is migrated, the default version changes. * Understand that lots of tcl stuff will only work with a certain level of * tcl libs, and not below that level, but, yes, I think that would be far * more prefereable. Many people are not aware, I think, of the files * tclConfig.sh and tkConfig.sh that tcl/tk normally installs in * /usr/local/lib just for that purpose. Most of our tcl ports have been * jiggered just to ignore those, or patch around them. It seems some people haven't been reading the lists carefully. That file (t*Config.sh) is EXACTLY the problem. There is only one /usr/local/lib/tkConfig.sh. So I moved the non-standard versions to install in /usr/local/lib/tk<version>/tkConfig.sh. If you use a non-standard version, just source that one instead of the default one. Is that so bad? In case people don't remember, I asked Prof. Ousterhout how we should solve the multiple versions problem before doing this, and this is what he suggested. And don't you understand, it is just not possible to maintain the whole ports collection without being able to have multiple versions on one machine. Either on the user's machine (because of ports requiring different base tcl/tk) or on my package building machine. * I don't think that they will be much porting of new tcl things to FreeBSD * until we stop getting in the way of tcl's own portability. You keep making such statements (*) without suggesting an alternative. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO??? * I ended up nuking my own itcl port, because itcl wants to replace the * normal tcl/tk (whatever you have) and replace it with it's own patched * version, and since that unalterably killed this philosophy that folks must * be able to run multiple tcl versions, itcl was killed. It wasn't a * question of itcl not working, or the port not working; it was a question * of being able to force it into our mold here. I don't like the mold much. This is not true. itcl was killed because it replaced the default tcl/tk that other ports rely on. It has nothing to do with multiple versions. * I've discussed this enough, I don't think I'm enough in the majority to * force this, so let this thread go away, please. Maybe a year from now * I'll try again. You brought it up, and as long as you keep making statements like * above, don't expect to get away with it. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706251959.MAA16997>