On 9/26/06, Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
nikns writes:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 02:06:24AM +0000, Deanna Phillips wrote:
>>Is there a reason why no tclsh symlink is made by the tcl ports?
> Because we have tcl8.3 too!?
This doesn't solve my problem. :)
Anyway, for the archives: I see now that this is handled via
lang.port.mk files for other languages like python and ruby.
I can cut the tcl parts from the port I'm working on without
losing much, but this question might pop up again.
Given the amount of compatibility between TCL distributions would it make
sense to put symlinks in the latest and then roll them along? Changes in
the last bump (from 8.3.4 to 8.4.0 in September 2000) are described here:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=109968&group_id=10894
If memory serves 8.0 had the old extension model (pre TEA) so it should
probably be kept, but is there a similiar reason to keep 8.3 around?
-N
