Move ctm to ports?

[Julian H. Stacey]

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 at . 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 at 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 at .
  
  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.