From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Aug 2 02:28:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA13874 for ports-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 02:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA13814; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 02:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id EAA10704; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 04:27:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sjx-ca30-16.ix.netcom.com(204.31.235.176) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma010692; Sat Aug 2 04:27:28 1997 Received: (from asami@localhost) by blimp.mimi.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) id CAA11125; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 02:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 02:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199708020927.CAA11125@blimp.mimi.com> To: andreas@klemm.gtn.com CC: ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <19970801182448.26268@klemm.gtn.com> (message from Andreas Klemm on Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:24:48 +0200) Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk * But unable to build really working 2.2 packages, because they * only have -current :-/ Well, I'll be doing thot from now on. Watch packages-stable on your nearest mirror site -- other than building packages for new/upgraded ports, I've been recompiling the entire tree every month or so, and that will still continue after switching to -stable. * Well, wouldn't it make more sense to discuss, to back out the * changes that introduces these problems ? You are absolutely right. * Why was TCL not brought into the ports collection ??? * We already have several TCL versions there for backward * compatibility ... why not put the newest stuff into there * with respect to the problems. that now arise ? Beats me. ;) * Wouln't it be better to come to a decision, that such * things like perl and tcl, _if_ they are needed in the * base system, should be of the same version in -current * and -stable ?! That's a big "if" there. I think the latest incident are making many people wonder "is it really worth having tcl in the base tree?". The problem with tcl is that it changes too much and often new versions are not backwards compatible with the old ones. It's not much of a problem if it isn't such an essential part of the FreeBSD environment -- but it is, and there are so many ports that depend on a particular version of tcl, it is simply too much of a pain to have "the" version in the base system yank the ports around every time it is upgraded. (The last non-continuation occurred between tcl73/tk36 and tcl74/tk40 -- but at that time, tcl was not part of the base tree so we could deal with it entirely in the ports side.) There are only two ways out of this, as far as I can tell; remove tcl from the base system (pst has done most of the work for this), or completely ignore the one in the base system and always use tcl from the ports collection (I'm not sure how hard this is -- we may need an enhanced version of LIB_DEPENDS or something). * Ports should at least run with -STABLE and -CURRENT. I only run Absolutely. I (and many others) have spend much time and effort on this; I would like to continue doing so. Satoshi P.S. By the way, every single one of the packages (that worked for -current) still compiled cleanly after I switched to -stable; the only ones that broke since my last -current build (about two weeks ago) was tk41 (broken by half-baked upgrade/switch of dependency, since fixed) and tclX75 (broken by tk41, haven't figured this one out yet).