Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:31:50 -0400 From: "Donald J. Maddox" <root@scsn.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: dmaddox@scsn.net, David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>, Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <19970802153150.47714@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <15692.870549801@time.cdrom.com>; from Jordan K. Hubbard on Sat, Aug 02, 1997 at 12:23:21PM -0700 References: <19970802151135.60481@scsn.net> <15692.870549801@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 02, 1997 at 12:23:21PM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > Most of this argument is just silly. Even the most vehement anti-
> > bloatists don't consider perl to be "an evil, bloated monster"; they just
> > consider _it's inclusion in the base distribution_ to be AEBM. While you
>
> I don't see the difference from the POV of this discussion so this
> paragraph of yours doesn't really parse for me.
Huh?
>
> > In any case, I see none of this bloatist v. antibloatist propaganda
> > as cogent here. Tcl should not be part of the base system because it
>
> It's imminently cogent - this is NOT just a technical issue, it's
> an emotional one, and if you think that all software decisions are
> made on purely technical merits then I have a certain tower in Paris
> which I could make you a _great_ deal on. ;-)
No, in light of this discussion, it's clear that they are not. I
humbly submit that they _should be_. Maybe you gentlemen of core should
take a step back from the situation, take a few deep breaths, and
reconsider this issue.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970802153150.47714>