Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:23:33 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: how many tk version do oyu need... Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980221141505.22691A-100000@james.hwcn.org> In-Reply-To: <199802211734.SAA03246@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This should have been sent to -ports, not -hackers. On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > I already hated tk for its abundant runtime errors (reminds me of when i > used to run basic programs and there was no compiler... circa 1981...) > and this need of having 3 or more versions of tk installed makes me You mean just like having many different widget libraries? > 1) is there any hope to settle on some "standard" version of tk/tcl > and try to have most ports use that one; Yes. tk80. Tk81 also exists, and maybe should be used, but I think it's possibly best to continue using tk80 over tk81. Maybe not. :) I've not idea what differences exist between the two. > 2) could we flag ports which do not use the "standard" version of > tk/tcl so that one needs to do > > make YES_I_REALLY_WANT_THIS_BLOAT I doubt it. > 3) is there a simple way to list all ports which depend on a given > package (e.g. tk4.1, tk4.2 etc...) again to have an idea of what to > fix. All ports using tk (should) belong to a virtual category corresponding to their version. Eg. All the tk41 ports belong to the category tk41. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.980221141505.22691A-100000>