Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:31:57 +0100 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" <ctm-users@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? Message-ID: <201112051532.pB5FVvxC038767@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: Your message "Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:48:13 CST." <4EDCD9AD.1000504@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201112051532.pB5FVvxC038767>