From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Aug  2 22:38:57 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA06164
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 22:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA06159
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 22:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA00555; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 22:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>
cc: dmaddox@scsn.net, David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>,
        current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 23:36:41 EDT."
             <Pine.BSF.3.96.970802232349.381A-100000@Journey2.mat.net> 
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 22:38:22 -0700
Message-ID: <552.870586702@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

[What's it going to take to get people to trim the headers, electric
shocks? ;-)  Trimmed yet again to include only -current]

> anti-bloatist.  Everyone knows that tcl and tk are like siamese twins,

False.  I've used TCL without a hint of Tk anywhere many times.  It's
more than generally useful as a scripting language, with or without a
GUI.

> 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

Sorry, but this argument is bogus.

					Jordan