Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:42:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.dialix.com> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Satoshi Asami <asami@freefall.freebsd.org>, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/libz/pkg COMMENT DESCR PLIST ports/devel/libz Makefile ports/devel/libz/files md5 ports/devel/libz/patches patch-aa Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960819133458.23180H-100000@packet.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199608191722.BAA15836@spinner.DIALix.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Peter Wemm wrote: [patches deleted] > > Note that I left the "SHARED_LIB_SUFFIX" rules alone, this seems to be > what the tk port uses to generate it's name. Changing this will require > larger changes around the place, as "-ltk41" will become "-ltk" and > libtk41.so.1.0 will become libtk.so.41.0. Perhaps that's not such a bad > thing anyway. Peter, I'd really love to have the revision numbers dropped from the name, but I have been reading on the usenet tcl list, and it seems that 7.6 and 4.2 aren't that far from release. There are already officially released patches to 7.5 and 4.1. The disucssion seems to be moving on towards the release after 7.6, which looks like it will be 8.0. Unless we force folks to dump older version compatibility, the ability to have the old 7.3 and 3.6 stuff at plain tcl/tk, then it doesn't seem possible. I think that's just what should happen, myself, because it's hobbling folks that want to stay reasonably current, all the other packages have to be modified to look for our special lib names (-ltcl75). > > The next patch to the tk41 port makes it build from the tcl75 in the source > tree: > [more patches deleted] > > The TCL_SRC_DIR is used by the 'make test' code when both tcl and tk are > running in a private build directory and have not been installed yet. > Since the version in the base source is not optional, this part is > pretty much irrelevant. > > But the big question is, how much to the ports that use tcl and tk directly > need to be changed? Code that just uses wish (eg: exmh, zircon) isn't > affected in the slightest. But other ports that expect to grope around in > tclConfig.sh and tkConfig.sh might need some tweaks. > > Cheers, > -Peter > > > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.960819133458.23180H-100000>