Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:26:49 +0100 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> To: Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru> Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" <ctm-users@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? Message-ID: <201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: Your message "Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:45:03 %2B0400." <4EDC5A5F.4080707@inse.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201112051426.pB5EQnOH038029>