From owner-ctm-users@freebsd.org Mon Oct 22 21:11:48 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6D6FD6B4B; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:11:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9477B74008; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:11:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id w9MLBi5o013665; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id w9MLBisu013664; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201810222111.w9MLBisu013664@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: ctm(1) deprecation in the FreeBSD base system? In-Reply-To: <7832.1540241924@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:11:43 -0700 (PDT) CC: Warner Losh , Ed Maste , FreeBSD Current , ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:11:48 -0000 > -------- > In message > , Warner Losh writes: > > >> > I think Julian Stacy is still running CTM generation ? > >> > >> Ah, yes, that brought back enough brain cells, > >> confirmed that is who I saw with ctm usage. > > > >Do we need it in base? Or can we make it a port? > > Absolutely make it a port! > I concur, but please hold off on the svn rm until Stephen Montgomery and Julian have acked that they can quickly and easily transition to a port, then I would even be fine with a MFC gone in(13) to stable/12 and an immediate rm from head. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org