From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Aug 22 10:55:30 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA22323
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22303;
          Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA03116; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: Thomas Gellekum <tg@ihf.rwth-aachen.de>
cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: tkman and tk-8.0 
In-reply-to: Your message of "22 Aug 1997 14:14:35 +0200."
             <87n2mact3o.fsf@ghpc6.ihf.rwth-aachen.de> 
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:38:37 -0700
Message-ID: <3113.872271517@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> tkman-2.0 will require a patch to Tk-8.0 and won't run with older
> versions. The patch is available as invisible.patch in the latest beta
> (ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/ucb/people/phelps/tcltk/tkman-2.0b6.tar.Z)
> and probably won't get included into Tk-8.0. Can we just include it in
> the tk80 port? The resulting wish is compatible to the original, just
> the text widget contains an additional command (`-invisible') which

Sounds good to me - I'd say we just add in the patch for now since the
ports mechanism at least keeps them separate and if Tk-8.0 should ever
come up with a more "official" mechanism, we can simply remove it
again.

					Jordan