From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Dec 17 15:39:05 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA26590
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:39:05 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (ala-ca34-53.ix.netcom.com [207.93.143.181])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA26584
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:39:00 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.8/8.6.9) id PAA05516; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199712172338.PAA05516@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: mike@smith.net.au
CC: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <199712172230.JAA01693@word.smith.net.au> (message from Mike Smith on Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:00:38 +1030)
Subject: Re: why is tcl in base distribution
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * Because the ports collection strives to be self-contained.  This is a 
 * Very Smart Idea, not the least because if the anti-bloat faction rips 
 * Tcl bleeding from the corpse of the system, the ports will still work.

In case you haven't noticed, tcl has already left -stable.  And both
ports and the system appear to be in extremely good condition, thank
you. :)

Satoshi