Move ctm to ports?

[Chris Rees]

On 5 December 2011 14:26, Julian H. Stacey <jhs at berklix.com> 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 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.
>

CTM is maintained actively and doesn't have any security issues, so
there's no danger of that.

Chris