Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 19:07:10 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: jmb@freefall.freebsd.org (Jonathan M. Bresler), jkh@time.cdrom.com, nate@sri.MT.net, phk@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <199606200107.TAA08453@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199606200128.KAA04284@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199606191653.JAA29372@freefall.freebsd.org> <199606200128.KAA04284@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Nate's comments about Flex are telling. His insistence that he hasn't > upgraded it "because it wasn't necessary" aren't borne out by the > continuing questions being asked along the lines of "the Flex in /usr/bin > is version a.b.c which is really old and has lots of bugs and can't be > used to compile XYZ, you need version i.j.k instead". But those programs aren't parts of ports or part of our base system, it's importance/necessiry is minimal compared to 'fixing existing bugs' and 'extending the current system'. It's all a matter of priorities. If flex was a critical component it would have been upgraded months ago. > I'm not accusing Nate of being lazy; I'm suggesting that upgrading Flex > would be a lot easier if it weren't necessary to start by rewriting the > makefile from scratch. It took me 20 minutes to upgrade flex today. All of the work was done by Geoff Rehmet originally, so upgrading was a breeze. I suspect the next version will also be a breeze. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606200107.TAA08453>