From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18607 invoked by uid 1002); 21 Nov 2003 14:40:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 10913 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 14:40:05 -0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org From: Eamon Caddigan Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:40:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20031121134441.GA31194@mail.ignum.cz> X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (SunOS) Sender: news Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Slotting Tcl/Tk X-Archives-Salt: 2d464f3e-b987-40bc-95d3-21cf20597d64 X-Archives-Hash: b45ab27bd90c6329512b49294ca855f3 Stanislav Brabec wrote: > > Tcl/tk slots is bad idea. It can change only if somebody will hack all > dev-lang/tcl (and some extra) ebuilds to be able to create simultaneously > packages for both tcl/tk 8.3 and 8.4 (if they support building for both > versions). If this is true, then I feel it's imperative that Tcl/Tk 8.4 become stable, and all other packages in portage are made to work with it. 8.4 is about a year old now, and I find it unacceptable that it's only available as an "unstable" package. This situation reminds me of that *other* distro. I agree that there are a lot of potential issues involved with SLOTting this package. Unfortunately, the only alternatives -- a similarly massive effort to make sure everything works with the newest version, or sticking with an increasingly out-of-date package -- seem worse. Thoughts? -Eamon -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list