Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:45:03 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: "ctm-users@freebsd.org" <ctm-users@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Move ctm to ports? Message-ID: <4EDC5A5F.4080707@inse.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EDBD1D1.2080802@missouri.edu> References: <4EDBD1D1.2080802@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > > One advantage is that changes to ctm (like allowing different > compression programs, or incorporating svn into ctm) can be made > relatively quickly. If the ports the only way for development of ctm, I suggest to try to make it modular and keep the base functionality out of the box as it is. 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. rik > For example, the following PR has not been acted upon: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/159665 > > Also, if I want svn incorporated into ctm, then it will need the > subversion port as a dependency. > > What would the disadvantages be? > _______________________________________________ > ctm-users@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/ctm-users > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "ctm-users-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EDC5A5F.4080707>