Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 12:23:32 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <19970802122332.51323@klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <199708020927.CAA11125@blimp.mimi.com>; from Satoshi Asami on Sat, Aug 02, 1997 at 02:27:25AM -0700 References: <19970801182448.26268@klemm.gtn.com> <199708020927.CAA11125@blimp.mimi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 02, 1997 at 02:27:25AM -0700, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> * But unable to build really working 2.2 packages, because they
> * only have -current :-/
>
> Well, I'll be doing thot from now on. Watch packages-stable on your
> nearest mirror site -- other than building packages for new/upgraded
> ports, I've been recompiling the entire tree every month or so, and
> that will still continue after switching to -stable.
Hmmm, words like "if it ainīt broken, donīt fix it".
The whole thing intorduces new words an phrases as "ports-stable"
removes well known things like ports-current.
Wouldnīt it be simpler to keep things as they are and to
consolidate on a basis, that makes it again possible for
you so as if nothing bad has happened ? ;-)
> * Well, wouldn't it make more sense to discuss, to back out the
> * changes that introduces these problems ?
>
> You are absolutely right.
Shouldnīt we then wait for an agreement without changing
things or do you want to push the discussion forward by
introducing ports-stable ?
> The problem with tcl is that it changes too much and often new
> versions are not backwards compatible with the old ones. It's not
> much of a problem if it isn't such an essential part of the FreeBSD
> environment -- but it is, and there are so many ports that depend on a
> particular version of tcl, it is simply too much of a pain to have
> "the" version in the base system yank the ports around every time it
> is upgraded. (The last non-continuation occurred between tcl73/tk36
> and tcl74/tk40 -- but at that time, tcl was not part of the base
> tree so we could deal with it entirely in the ports side.)
I think FreeBSD doesnīt have to use both scripting languages.
Perl is _the_ straight forward enhancement of sh & Co., so
that it should be ok to write utilities based on this.
Desktop Managament systems or administration tool could be
as well packaged as port with a proper dependency to the
correct TCL/TK version.
During system installation you could ask if the user wants
to install the foo/bar administration tool package
and FreeBSD would be purified from the bloat of huge
"work in progress" packages ...
> 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).
See above, Iīd vote now to remove TCP completely after seeing
that results.
> Absolutely. I (and many others) have spend much time and effort on
> this; I would like to continue doing so.
Thanks for your and all the others most valueable work.
My big wish would be, not to debate about this too much,
we all know our wonderful working ports mechanism, so
then please use it when it is recommended. And I think it
would be here.
Would you all agree, to make ports of FreeBSD system
utilities that rely on TCL ?
Is it possible to remove TCL from the base system and
keep the ports mechism as it is without introducing
new declarations ?
--
Andreas Klemm | klemm.gtn.com - powered by
Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD
http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/SMP.html
http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/benches.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970802122332.51323>