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