Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:47:02 -0800 (PST) From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu Cc: FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: blt2.1 Message-ID: <199611101147.DAA01424@baloon.mimi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961109113019.15635B-100000@maryann.eng.umd.edu> (message from Chuck Robey on Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:42:19 -0500 (EST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Understand that itcl doesn't sit beside tcl, it replaces it. I have no problem with that. In fact I have no intention to engage in a debate on what itcl is supposed to/not supposed to do, that's not my expertise. The only concern I have is consistency between packages. Say, if the BLT port is going to find itcl and link against it if it's found, then we need to add a dependency for it, or the user might end up with a package that doesn't work because of missing package dependencies. Maybe we are nearing the end of our package scheme, it's just not capable of handling situations like this. But that's why I'm very sensitive about ports that want to auto-detect and use every utensil in the kitchen they can find, because our build machine tends to have the whole three-story toolshop which the user's machine almost certainly does not. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611101147.DAA01424>