Re: [Tcllib-devel] Tcllib - Reopened discussion on what packages to putinto it.

[Arjen M. <arj...@wl...>]

Virden, Larry W. wrote:

> 
>I'd prefer to see tklib and tcllib remain relatively self-enclosed. I
>understand having performance bumps if some other package is present. I
>even understand where perhaps additional functionality is available, if
>some particular version of tcl or some additional package (such as tls)
>were available. 
>
>I would propose that collecting libraries that have other types of
>dependencies as an alternative. 
>Since we already see a resistance from certain parts of the community
>towards downloading additional packages, it would seem to me to be a
>move in the wrong direction to add even more dependencies to tcllib or
>tklib.
>
>In this way, people who want to minimize dependencies will continue to
>be assured that downloading tcllib will not result in the need for other
>items.
>
>Of course, one could argue that just by getting the packages being
>proposed into a TEAPOT repository (along with their dependant
>extensions) one solves a lot of the issues up front.
>  
>
I agree with Larry:

It would be nice to have a collection of extensions that depend on compiled
packages/libraries. But that collection should not be in Tcllib proper. (The
way I use it myself is as a loose collection of packages that I can use 
separately.
I seldom need more than a few at any one time).

A separate collection with packages that depend on compiled libraries could
then be used in a very similar way. The separation makes clear what you can
expect in terms of platform-dependence etc.

Regards,

Arjen