From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Aug  2 14:44:16 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA15992
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unique.usn.blaze.net.au (root@unique.usn.blaze.net.au [203.17.53.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA15926;
          Sat, 2 Aug 1997 14:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unique.usn.blaze.net.au (davidn@local [127.0.0.1])
	by unique.usn.blaze.net.au (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA14589;
	Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:40:47 +1000 (EST)
Message-Id: <199708022140.HAA14589@unique.usn.blaze.net.au>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@dk.tfs.com>
cc: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>,
        asami@cs.berkeley.edu (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: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 20:05:18 +0200."
             <1773.870545118@critter.dk.tfs.com> 
X-Face: (W@z~5kg?"+5?!2kHP)+l369.~a@oTl^8l87|/s8"EH?Uk~P<Wc^}f75I|456ez/M
 E3OlD+ZL@c>#N+Ec~Z&@;'LL!;3?y<m[SK`'\R~Oe|(t-x+U@a%p!1_fZP0!Tb^?'%M1|"n9
 Fl{Ao~%X[Ec|bMlaN-3#x.e')nZ2/HHYSa2D[:bk#pj0(}\HpKeE}/GqUb3-1}lnUm6Et4?(
 gB5[*Z3Mu6o{Og.EJ))beY9oq9wcVU7_n}:I2JvCaa[5=&PI;x__["DL`uI}=s>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 07:40:47 +1000
From: David Nugent <davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>In message <199708021720.DAA00921@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>, David Nugent writes:
>>Just out of curiosity, why exactly was tcl8.0 *beta* added to the base
>>distribution? 
>
>Because -current is "not yet release code" and tcl8.0b2 is "almost but
>not quite release code".
>
>That's why.

Well, sure, but This isn't why I asked.

What features in tcl8.0 are required for a running FreeBSD system?
Why is it essential that tcl be present in the base system AT ALL?
What benefits are there in tcl being present here instead of being
built by the ports/packages system?

>It sounds to me like a lot of people should seriously reconsider if 
>they ought to run -current :-(

Most of the systems I maintain are 2.2. However, I do software
development on -current. I already mentioned that I'm quite prepared
to live with any inconveniences (and there are plenty of those)
absolutely without complaint. This has nothing to do with the
issues I'm raising.

This change appears to be entirely gratuitous. Please correct me if
I am wrong. I'd seriously like to know what the benefits are of
nailing ourselves to tcl8.0 in the FreeBSD base system will yield,
or in fact what benefits having tcl7.5 is already giving 2.2 systems.
Why is it worth the cost, hassle and upset, particularly with
respect to the ports system. What compelling reasons are there or
having it there as compared with the much more cheaply maintained
ports system? Enquiring minds want to know.


Regards,
David

David Nugent - Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia
davidn@freebsd.org davidn@blaze.net.au http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/