From owner-freebsd-current Sat Aug 2 20:41:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA02075 for current-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 20:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.mat.net (root@earth.mat.net [206.246.122.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA02047; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 20:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Journey2.mat.net (journey2.mat.net [206.246.122.116]) by earth.mat.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA09522; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:36:25 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@Journey2.mat.net 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-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Most of this argument is just silly. Even the most vehement anti- > > bloatists don't consider perl to be "an evil, bloated monster"; they just > > consider _it's inclusion in the base distribution_ to be AEBM. While you > > I don't see the difference from the POV of this discussion so this > paragraph of yours doesn't really parse for me. > > > 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. ;-) Just want one clarification. Most of you who've talked with me know I am not one of the anti-bloatists (I like _big_ disks), so I want to make sure that having tcl out of the tree is not singularly associated with being an anti-bloatist. Everyone knows that tcl and tk are like siamese twins, bodily joined, and only separated at great risk. Don't tell me that we can't have tk in the tree, I know it requires X, and I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that tcl requires tk, and if we can't have tk, we mustn't have tcl. All the other BSD environments are very friendly to tcl applications, so why does FreeBSD have to have such a tcl unfriendly environment? If we didn't have tcl ports, the complaint level would be even higher. It just seems like a scene from Catch-22. Why is FreeBSD a hard system to build tcl apps on? Because we like tcl ... does that make sense? This argument is not really centered on being bloatist, at least not totally. I would fight taking perl out of the kernel (I want perl5.004 brought in) but I'll be pleased to see tcl make an exit. Might a compromise be made, let tcl go away, in exchange for updating perl? ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------