Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:16:23 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" <ctm-users@freebsd.org>, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? Message-ID: <4EDCE047.7060309@inse.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu> References: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EDCE047.7060309>