From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Nov 10 03:47:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id DAA02081 for ports-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA02073 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:47:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from baloon.mimi.com (sjx-ca83-03.ix.netcom.com [207.94.112.99]) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08181; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:47:04 -0800 Received: (from asami@localhost) by baloon.mimi.com (8.8.2/8.6.12) id DAA01424; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:47:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:47:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611101147.DAA01424@baloon.mimi.com> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu CC: FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: (message from Chuck Robey on Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:42:19 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: blt2.1 From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk * 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