Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:10:07 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> 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: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970802155632.17562D-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> In-Reply-To: <15692.870549801@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > 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. ;-) Ah, yes. There are many snakes in this pit. One I have not seen recently in the discussion in the inherent problem of incorporating into the base system a substantial component that is on a fundamentally different development schedule than the rest of the OS. For things with a relatively long update cycle, such as gcc, this isn't a huge problem, but for more rapidly developing items, like tcl, users stand a good chance of wanting an update between FreeBSD releases. Our only easy to use interim update mechanism is the ports collection. -john
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970802155632.17562D-100000>