On Sat, Jul 19, 2003, Michael van Elst wrote:
> > Ah, a lot better than my quick attempt. Thanks. The question just
> > remains: do we really want Tk stuff here, too? I mean, wouldn't it be
> > better under with_tcl to just provide the libpgtcl.so stuff only? And,
> > is there still any Tk/X11 stuff distributed with PostgreSQL which we
> > also install?
>
> The only application of pgtcl I am aware of is pgaccess which requires Tk.
Wait, I think we talk of different things here. Sure, Tcl with Tk
is cool. What I mean is: AFAIK pgaccess is _NOT_ distributed with
PostgreSQL anymore. There is only the glue library libpgtcl and
a possible pgtclsh. Neither one requires Tk, only plain Tcl. So
I'm wondering why our "postgresql" package should require "tcl,
tcl::with_x11 = yes, X11" and not just "tcl". AFAIK it only needs
plain Tcl under both build-time and run-time. That another (to be
made) "pgaccess" package then has to require both "postgresql,
postgresql::with_tcl" and "tcl, tcl::with_x11, X11" is clear. But this
is a different thing IMHO.
> I also haven't seen anybody who installs Tcl but drops Tk.
"Expect" users do ;-) But the point I made above is just about "minimum
required dependencies" and not about "usually existing relationships".
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
