Subject: Re: tcl package names....
To: Alistair G. Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bjoern Labitzke <email@example.com>
Date: 01/07/2000 14:26:57
* Alistair G. Crooks (firstname.lastname@example.org) [000107 14:12]:
| (The tcl80 package name, and then tk80, came about because of idiocy
| on my part, I'll admit that. I'd just like to clean it up now, and
| it looks like we're just getting into a bigger mess).
Grin, well, there you have it: I saw this name and how the package was
implemented to support the installation of multiple Tcl/Tk-packages in
parallel and reasoned someone would have thought that through. Therefor I
submitted a tcl82-package that tried to not conflict with the existing
package. Somehow I overlooked the manual page conflicts for which Matthias
Drochner offered possible solutions of which he implemented one himself.
I am content with one tcl and one tk package. So if no serious resistance
exists, I'll resubmit the tcl-package together with the tk-package without
Hmm, who is supposed to solve the resulting conflicts in pkgsrc? Many packages
depend on tcl and/or tk, some even on the patch-level (e.g. timidity). If the
submitter (meaning me) should take a look at that, than I'll submit the
packages, but must delay the fixes at least 1.5 weeks.
Bjoern Labitzke <email@example.com>
Use PGP! (Don't you use envelopes for your letters?)