From owner-freebsd-current Sat Aug 2 03:13:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA16018 for current-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 03:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA15998; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 03:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from msmith@localhost) by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.8.5/8.7.3) id TAA09852; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:43:14 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199708021013.TAA09852@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued In-Reply-To: <199708020927.CAA11125@blimp.mimi.com> from Satoshi Asami at "Aug 2, 97 02:27:25 am" To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:43:14 +0930 (CST) Cc: andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I've stayed out of this thread long enough. 8) Satoshi has, IMHO, done the right thing, but for all the wrong reasons. Ports should have less (or no) "official" support on -current. If you are running -current, you should be able to take care of yourself. Naturally, merging fixes to help them run on -current is desirable, as it will make the cutover at the next major upgrade easier. > * Well, wouldn't it make more sense to discuss, to back out the > * changes that introduces these problems ? > > You are absolutely right. We've done this. Countless times. Nobody appears to have actually done very much about the results of these discussions. It is, however, apparent that moving in any _other_ direction that that eventually agreed on will only make things worse. > * Wouln't it be better to come to a decision, that such > * things like perl and tcl, _if_ they are needed in the > * base system, should be of the same version in -current > * and -stable ?! This indicates that you haven't even watched, let alone studied, the issues that have been raised in these discussions before. > There are only two ways out of this, as far as I can tell; remove tcl > from the base system (pst has done most of the work for this), or > completely ignore the one in the base system and always use tcl from > the ports collection (I'm not sure how hard this is -- we may need an > enhanced version of LIB_DEPENDS or something). The correct answer to this is, of course, that any port that requires a specific Tcl version or range of versions should require one of those versions out of the ports collection. A port failing to operate regardless of the Tcl version in the base distribution is _fundamentally_broken_, and should be fixed. -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[