From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Aug 2 14:12:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA14335 for ports-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (fallout.campusview.indiana.edu [149.159.1.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA14256; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 14:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (jfieber@localhost) by fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18564; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:10:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:10:07 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: dmaddox@scsn.net, David Nugent , Michael Smith , Satoshi Asami , andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued In-Reply-To: <15692.870549801@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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