Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote / napísal(a): Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? I can guess that there have been heated conversations about this, but a my look at the mailing list archives didn't give me anything. But it sure would be much nicer if there was just a tcl and a tcl-devel port or something like that. Are there really applications that need tcl83 but break on tcl84? Stephen ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The various Tcl and Tk versions do have incompatible changes in the interfaces and in the command syntax. It is very much like Berkeley DB - you have several versions, too. You have to rewrite your program to support more (or newer) Tcl versions. The idea on the current implementation in the FreeBSD ports tree is to stay compatible with older tcl scripts and libraries, too. But the structure of the supporting bsd.tcl.mk is very old and does not suit the needs of current applications anymore. Another recent issue is the handling of threaded and non-threaded versions of Tcl 8.4 and 8.5. The current implementation ist just a workaround, so that applications that explicitly require a threaded Tcl build can use it. A threaded Tcl build is 100% compatible to a non-threaded Tcl. As far as I know, threaded Tcl 8.4 builds and runs on all common FreeBSD architectures. A very clean and good solution would to have a threaded Tcl only. I will test this against all libraries from the FreeBSD ports that extend Tcl to check if they work with the threaded version correctly. I am working with miwi@ on a new implementation of bsd.tcl.mk A first working version can be viewed under: http://www.matuska.org/martin/cgi/viewvc.cgi/ports/Mk/bsd.tcl.mk The final version will probably be different - the threading part might be removed completely in favour of using threaded tcl by default. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's
On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:46:48PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: March 13, 2007 3:48:56 PM PDT To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? No, they are not. What a pity. So how come the various linux distributions seem to get away with only one version of tcl and tk? Better versioning in their package infrastructure? Dunno what you mean by this. Kris Actually after doing a bit of research it appears that what I meant in my reply is incorrect. From what I can see Linux uses a method of branching with its tcl and tk packages similar to what FreeBSD does. I know my sample size is small, but I'm pretty sure it's a defacto standard if these two distros do the branch versioning that I see: Debian (scroll almost all the way to the bottom to find the tk refs): - http://packages.debian.org/stable/libs/ Gentoo: - http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=tcl -Garrett ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:26:25AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? No, they are not. What a pity. So how come the various linux distributions seem to get away with only one version of tcl and tk? Better versioning in their package infrastructure? Dunno what you mean by this. Kris Actually after doing a bit of research it appears that what I meant in my reply is incorrect. From what I can see Linux uses a method of branching with its tcl and tk packages similar to what FreeBSD does. I know my sample size is small, but I'm pretty sure it's a defacto standard if these two distros do the branch versioning that I see: Debian (scroll almost all the way to the bottom to find the tk refs): - http://packages.debian.org/stable/libs/ Gentoo: - http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=tcl This makes better sense and is in line with what I would expect. Kris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's
On Wed 14 Mar 2007 01:03, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:48:56PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? No, they are not. What a pity. So how come the various linux distributions seem to get away with only one version of tcl and tk? Probably the various incompatibilities are usually minor, so someone with basic knowledge of tcl/tk can forward-port the legacy code to the latest version. I'd be happy if someone were to do this for FreeBSD, at least for the older tcl/tk versions. Kris It seems most ports work fine with tcl84, and that tcl84 deps are historical rather than technical (no one looked if the ports works with tcl84). Anyway, I started working on this. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why so many tcl's and tk's
Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? I can guess that there have been heated conversations about this, but a my look at the mailing list archives didn't give me anything. But it sure would be much nicer if there was just a tcl and a tcl-devel port or something like that. Are there really applications that need tcl83 but break on tcl84? Stephen ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? No, they are not. Kris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's
Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? No, they are not. What a pity. So how come the various linux distributions seem to get away with only one version of tcl and tk? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Why so many tcl's and tk's
Begin forwarded message: From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: March 13, 2007 3:48:56 PM PDT To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? No, they are not. What a pity. So how come the various linux distributions seem to get away with only one version of tcl and tk? Better versioning in their package infrastructure? -Garrett ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: Why so many tcl's and tk's
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:46:48PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: March 13, 2007 3:48:56 PM PDT To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? No, they are not. What a pity. So how come the various linux distributions seem to get away with only one version of tcl and tk? Better versioning in their package infrastructure? Dunno what you mean by this. Kris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why so many tcl's and tk's
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:48:56PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: Are the different versions of tcl and tk really not backwards compatible with earlier versions? No, they are not. What a pity. So how come the various linux distributions seem to get away with only one version of tcl and tk? Probably the various incompatibilities are usually minor, so someone with basic knowledge of tcl/tk can forward-port the legacy code to the latest version. I'd be happy if someone were to do this for FreeBSD, at least for the older tcl/tk versions. Kris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
