| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
a port so there is nothing to be done on that side now.
Approved by: jkh
===
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
cc: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued)
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 20:23:31 -0700
>decision is, I'll respect it.
Another chance to architect people's principles...I can hardly wait. Seems
quite appropriate for a Sunday - I just need to get one of those collection
plates (and money envelopes) so I can profit, too. :-)
Tcl stays in /usr/src for now, but it needs to be kept up to date; same
for perl. If Jordan doesn't have "setup" (written in tcl) ready for 3.0,
then tcl will be yanked prior to the 3.0 release (and made into a port).
As for the ports tree only supporting the last FreeBSD release, this seems
sensible to me. The "ports" have always been a moving target between releases
and the problem is only going to get worse when we expand to supporting other
processor architectures. In any case, Satoshi is and always has been in charge
of the ports tree and whatever he wants to do with it (within reason :-)) is
his decision.
Does this cover the issue completely? I admit to deleting messages in this
thread with unusual fervor (people have FAR too much time on their hands!).
There's a fair bit of reasoning behind the above, but since everyone is sick
of arguing about this, I'll spare you the analysis.
-DG
David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
makefile doesn't install them, and they couldn't be used without
lots of undocumented -I's in CFLAGS. tcl.h is still installed in
/usr/include/tcl/. Note that rev.1.24 of tcl_bmake/mkMakefile.sh
broke all the section 3 tcl man pages by putting it there instead
of in /usr/include.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Regenerated libtcl/Makefile. This adds -DHAVE_ST_BLKSIZE=1 to CFLAGS.
It was broken by direct editing in rev.1.25.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
installing data files.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
in src/tools.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This will make a number of things easier in the future, as well as (finally!)
avoiding the Id-smashing problem which has plagued developers for so long.
Boy, I'm glad we're not using sup anymore. This update would have been
insane otherwise.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
needed, as he discovered when he tried to run vi. :-]
These files used to be stubs which used #ifdef PIC to decide whether to
use the real dlopen() version or the stub version from the src/contrib/tcl
sources. Now, with the our stubs gone, the .PATH directive causes them to
be compiled directly from src/contrib/tcl/{unix,generic}. You might need
to rebuild your depend rules though as they may have stale paths.
Also, this is a generated file. This should not have been edited here.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
it has side effects elsewhere.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
No changes other than "instructions" for what other tools that use this
.. "interesting" .. system should name their shared libraries. This was
broken for some tools (eg: expect-5.21) even for the native tcl build (ie,
it would end up using libexpect521.so, not libexpect521.so.1.0)
|
| |
|
|
| |
one of them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
it may break `make reinstall'. Use cp(1).
simplify makefile
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Removed ugly newlines.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Add two scaffold files to (attempt) to make a tclsh compiled -static work.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
tcl install extra include files, and fixes on major/minor numbering.
Reviewed by: Peter Wemm
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
