From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 4 20:02:26 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56790106566B for ; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 20:02:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Received: from wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075EC8FC12 for ; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 20:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB4K2OPO013780 for ; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 14:02:24 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Message-ID: <4EDBD1D1.2080802@missouri.edu> Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:02:25 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:02:26 -0000 How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base system, and making it into a port? One advantage is that changes to ctm (like allowing different compression programs, or incorporating svn into ctm) can be made relatively quickly. For example, the following PR has not been acted upon: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/159665 Also, if I want svn incorporated into ctm, then it will need the subversion port as a dependency. What would the disadvantages be? From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 05:53:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8254106564A for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 05:53:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rik@inse.ru) Received: from ns.rikbsd.org (ns.rikbsd.org [95.143.215.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B138FC0A for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 05:53:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wn.rikbsd.org [192.168.1.254]) by ns.rikbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F11275D54A; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 06:37:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EDC5A5F.4080707@inse.ru> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:45:03 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110906) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith References: <4EDBD1D1.2080802@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <4EDBD1D1.2080802@missouri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:53:35 -0000 Hi, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base > system, and making it into a port? Please check the discussion about CVS on current@. The problem with ports that they are detached from the base and they are not always out of the box. > > One advantage is that changes to ctm (like allowing different > compression programs, or incorporating svn into ctm) can be made > relatively quickly. If the ports the only way for development of ctm, I suggest to try to make it modular and keep the base functionality out of the box as it is. The rest could be addon-ports. CTM from my point of view is the bootstrapping tool and it should not be removed from the base. rik > For example, the following PR has not been acted upon: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/159665 > > Also, if I want svn incorporated into ctm, then it will need the > subversion port as a dependency. > > What would the disadvantages be? > _______________________________________________ > ctm-users@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/ctm-users > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "ctm-users-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 14:48:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E6E106566B for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 14:48:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Received: from wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5958FC15 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 14:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [128.206.184.213] (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB5EmDOh079185; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:48:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Message-ID: <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:48:13 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111120 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Julian H. Stacey" References: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:48:23 -0000 On 12/05/11 08:26, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Hi, > Roman Kurakin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>> How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base >>> system, and making it into a port? OK, I am persuaded - no moving CTM to ports. I'll see if I can get a src commit bit, with the promise that I will only touch the ctm stuff. Next - suppose I want to make svn-cur officially part of CTM. Do any of you see a problem with having something in the base depending upon something in the ports - namely subversion and xz? (And hopefully in the next few years, subversion will become part of base.) From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 14:58:02 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B795106566C for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 14:58:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from tower.berklix.org (tower.berklix.org [83.236.223.114]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03688FC13 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 14:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mart.js.berklix.net (p5DCBCC93.dip.t-dialin.net [93.203.204.147]) (authenticated bits=0) by tower.berklix.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id pB5ERKHC088740; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 14:27:21 GMT (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (fire.js.berklix.net [192.168.91.41]) by mart.js.berklix.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pB5ER7iS017759; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:27:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire.js.berklix.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB5EQnOH038029; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:26:55 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@fire.js.berklix.net) Message-Id: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> To: Roman Kurakin From: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: http://www.berklix.com BSD Unix Linux Consultancy, Munich Germany User-agent: EXMH on FreeBSD http://www.berklix.com/free/ X-URL: http://www.berklix.com In-reply-to: Your message "Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:45:03 +0400." <4EDC5A5F.4080707@inse.ru> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:26:49 +0100 Sender: jhs@berklix.com Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:58:02 -0000 Hi, Roman Kurakin wrote: > Hi, > > Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base > > system, and making it into a port? > Please check the discussion about CVS on current@. The problem with > ports that they are detached from the > base and they are not always out of the box. ... > The rest could be addon-ports. CTM from my > point of view is the bootstrapping tool and it > should not be removed from the base. Yup ! > > What would the disadvantages be? One disadvantage of CTM moving from src/ to ports/: There's a few rogue commiters indulging personal whims in ports/ ( PS Stephen is also a ports@ committer, but I do Not mean him. If keeping ctm in src/ means Stephen would need his commit bit extended from ports/ to also include src/ too, then good to extend it). The vast majority of commiters in ports are good, but a few deserve removing. A few have been vandalising ports/, tossing good stuff in the attic, just because { they personaly dont use it, & some send-pr alleged a bug not critical to all, & tossing a port into the Atiic was their easy way of decrementing the send-pr count }, despite it impacted without warning, FreeBSD ports/ users who move between releases without reading ports@ traffic. Example: One rogue wanted to throw out ports/mail/procmail despite being told by multiple people it worked fine; then he tried to force objectors to waste their time investigating the bug report, under threat of port deletion otherwise. There have been various similar threads in ports/ months past. It's not one to one, or multiple to one disagreements, but multiple to multiple disagreements. core@freebsd wrote that { portsmaster@ team were looking at it, but that portsmaster@ team was itself split on the issues. } The rogue commiter who wanted to kill procmail still argues with others about other ports he wants to toss. Maybe other similar threads too, but I'm behind on ports@, rogues vandalising ports deter one from reading ports@. Though a heavy user of ports/ I despair of ports: portsmaster@ team fails to discipline rogue commiters, & one of portsmaster@ supports them. I guess core@ takes more interest in src/ than ports/, so CTM would seem safer remaining in src/. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, & indent with "> ". Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 15:08:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033901065672 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:08:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rik@inse.ru) Received: from ns.rikbsd.org (ns.rikbsd.org [95.143.215.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577378FC1C for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wn.rikbsd.org [192.168.1.254]) by ns.rikbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7E1D25D551; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:08:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EDCE047.7060309@inse.ru> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:16:23 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110906) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith References: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" , "Julian H. Stacey" Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:08:23 -0000 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > On 12/05/11 08:26, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >> Hi, >> Roman Kurakin wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>>> How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base >>>> system, and making it into a port? > > OK, I am persuaded - no moving CTM to ports. I'll see if I can get a > src commit bit, with the promise that I will only touch the ctm stuff. > > Next - suppose I want to make svn-cur officially part of CTM. Do any > of you see a problem with having something in the base depending upon > something in the ports - namely subversion and xz? (And hopefully in > the next few years, subversion will become part of base.) It is not a good idea. How do you see the way to compile the base without smth in base? There is no problem with smth that uses smth ports-based, but not depend on smth ports-based. What do you think about plugins? rik > > From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 15:16:07 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F21106566B for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:16:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Received: from wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307868FC12 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [128.206.184.213] (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB5FFxSd079621; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:15:59 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Message-ID: <4EDCE02F.1070701@missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:15:59 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111120 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Kurakin References: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu> <4EDCE047.7060309@inse.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EDCE047.7060309@inse.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" , "Julian H. Stacey" Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:16:07 -0000 On 12/05/11 09:16, Roman Kurakin wrote: > Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >> On 12/05/11 08:26, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Roman Kurakin wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>>>> How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base >>>>> system, and making it into a port? >> >> OK, I am persuaded - no moving CTM to ports. I'll see if I can get a >> src commit bit, with the promise that I will only touch the ctm stuff. >> >> Next - suppose I want to make svn-cur officially part of CTM. Do any >> of you see a problem with having something in the base depending upon >> something in the ports - namely subversion and xz? (And hopefully in >> the next few years, subversion will become part of base.) > It is not a good idea. How do you see the way to compile the base > without smth in base? > There is no problem with smth that uses smth ports-based, but not depend > on smth ports-based. > What do you think about plugins? I'm not sure what you mean by plugins. But maybe you mean this: So I envision that if I start to use xz compression, and xz is not installed, then when you run ctm, it will issue an error like this: "You need to install xz from the port archivers/xz." Similarly, if you try to apply the svn deltas, you will get an error like "You need to install subversion from the port devel/subversion." So the errors would be run time, not compile time. From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 15:26:20 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275D21065672 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:26:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rik@inse.ru) Received: from ns.rikbsd.org (ns.rikbsd.org [95.143.215.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12EC8FC0A for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:26:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wn.rikbsd.org [192.168.1.254]) by ns.rikbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A4C7E5D53C; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:26:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EDCE47D.3060005@inse.ru> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:34:21 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110906) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith References: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu> <4EDCE047.7060309@inse.ru> <4EDCE02F.1070701@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <4EDCE02F.1070701@missouri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" , "Julian H. Stacey" Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:26:20 -0000 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > On 12/05/11 09:16, Roman Kurakin wrote: >> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>> On 12/05/11 08:26, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> Roman Kurakin wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>>>>> How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base >>>>>> system, and making it into a port? >>> >>> OK, I am persuaded - no moving CTM to ports. I'll see if I can get a >>> src commit bit, with the promise that I will only touch the ctm stuff. >>> >>> Next - suppose I want to make svn-cur officially part of CTM. Do any >>> of you see a problem with having something in the base depending upon >>> something in the ports - namely subversion and xz? (And hopefully in >>> the next few years, subversion will become part of base.) >> It is not a good idea. How do you see the way to compile the base >> without smth in base? >> There is no problem with smth that uses smth ports-based, but not depend >> on smth ports-based. >> What do you think about plugins? > > > I'm not sure what you mean by plugins. But maybe you mean this: > > So I envision that if I start to use xz compression, and xz is not > installed, then when you run ctm, it will issue an error like this: > > "You need to install xz from the port archivers/xz." > > Similarly, if you try to apply the svn deltas, you will get an error like > > "You need to install subversion from the port devel/subversion." > > So the errors would be run time, not compile time. That is ok. It is "use smth". But in case it will need to be compiled against smth it mast be split on the main module that is in base and does not depend on smth, and dynamically loaded part that can depend upon whatever it needs. This other part can be called plugin and must not be in base but rather some port. rik > _______________________________________________ > ctm-users@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/ctm-users > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "ctm-users-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 15:32:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BAFE1065676 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:32:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from tower.berklix.org (tower.berklix.org [83.236.223.114]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05C98FC12 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mart.js.berklix.net (p5DCBCC93.dip.t-dialin.net [93.203.204.147]) (authenticated bits=0) by tower.berklix.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id pB5FWLZq089233; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:32:22 GMT (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (fire.js.berklix.net [192.168.91.41]) by mart.js.berklix.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pB5FWA4Q018040; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:32:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@berklix.com) Received: from fire.js.berklix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire.js.berklix.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB5FVvxC038767; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:32:04 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jhs@fire.js.berklix.net) Message-Id: <201112051532.pB5FVvxC038767@fire.js.berklix.net> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith From: "Julian H. Stacey" Organization: http://www.berklix.com BSD Unix Linux Consultancy, Munich Germany User-agent: EXMH on FreeBSD http://www.berklix.com/free/ X-URL: http://www.berklix.com In-reply-to: Your message "Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:48:13 CST." <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:31:57 +0100 Sender: jhs@berklix.com Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:32:24 -0000 Hi, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > On 12/05/11 08:26, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Hi, > > Roman Kurakin wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > >>> How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base > >>> system, and making it into a port? > > OK, I am persuaded - no moving CTM to ports. Thanks :-) > I'll see if I can get a > src commit bit, with the promise that I will only touch the ctm stuff. I'm sure you'll have the backing of us ctm-users :-) > Next - suppose I want to make svn-cur officially part of CTM. Do any of > you see a problem with having something in the base depending upon > something in the ports - namely subversion and xz? (And hopefully in > the next few years, subversion will become part of base.) No problem, XZ moved from ports a while back, it's in src/ 8.2 Release. > Similarly, if you try to apply the svn deltas, you will get an error like > > "You need to install subversion from the port devel/subversion." > > So the errors would be run time, not compile time. Sounds good. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, & indent with "> ". Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 19:04:37 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E4A106564A for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:04:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE438FC13 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iafi7 with SMTP id i7so5050361iaf.13 for ; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:04:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bxLnVy/3VIChKX74aATG9Nrn7LLdtAYdCKr+b5dA4qs=; b=RQb6cvbdtSciEw4l4I4kcOxpK66KpWQZsbF7S51J7fEjj3yscZs//iYGuvXbQsZxDk jT5nnIxtenm5sHdEvDIYDHc2oGy8QXP29SBIIz7q/LOepeLM3a0VP32SCnuaDrickagR KC5C3JmmUDeIQLDl3Rsjun0zfCUwFg3JG/i8U= Received: by 10.42.147.72 with SMTP id m8mr11444994icv.56.1323110295943; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:38:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.12.139 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:37:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <4EDC5A5F.4080707@inse.ru> <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> From: Chris Rees Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 18:37:43 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BGYSHixL2QMHqa-3CvM5kqsHTQs Message-ID: To: "Julian H. Stacey" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:04:37 -0000 On 5 December 2011 14:26, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Hi, > Roman Kurakin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >> > How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base >> > system, and making it into a port? >> Please check the discussion about CVS on current@. The problem with >> ports that they are detached from the >> base and they are not always out of the box. > > ... > >> The rest could be addon-ports. CTM from my >> point of view is the bootstrapping tool and it >> should not be removed from the base. > > Yup ! > >> > What would the disadvantages be? > > One disadvantage of CTM moving from src/ to ports/: > There's a few rogue commiters indulging personal whims in ports/ > > =A0( PS Stephen is also a ports@ committer, but I do Not mean him. > =A0If keeping ctm in src/ means Stephen would need his commit bit > =A0extended from ports/ to also include src/ too, then good to extend it)= . > > =A0The vast majority of commiters in ports are good, but a few > =A0deserve removing. =A0A few have been vandalising ports/, tossing > =A0good stuff in the attic, just because { they personaly dont use it, & > =A0some send-pr alleged a bug not critical to all, & tossing a port > =A0into the Atiic was their easy way of decrementing the send-pr > =A0count }, despite it impacted without warning, FreeBSD ports/ users > =A0who move between releases without reading ports@ traffic. > CTM is maintained actively and doesn't have any security issues, so there's no danger of that. Chris From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 7 03:32:15 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CD1106566B for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 03:32:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Received: from wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8031B8FC08 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 03:32:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB73WEp3089935 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 21:32:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Message-ID: <4EDEDE3E.1080807@missouri.edu> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:32:14 -0600 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" References: <4ED559B0.1050806@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <4ED559B0.1050806@missouri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: ctm for svn X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 03:32:15 -0000 On 11/29/2011 04:16 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > I have started to experiment with providing the svn repository by CTM. > As I said a few months ago, I don't think it can be done using the > existing CTM infrastructure. > > My first efforts are at: > > ftp://cauchy.math.missouri.edu/pub/CTM/svn-cur/ > > The file README explains how to apply the deltas. > > Please try it out, and offer suggestions and ideas for changes and > improvements. I'm probably not going to go with this model (just in case anyone was trying this out).