CTM - any users left?
peter.jeremy at alcatel.com.au
Mon Jun 16 15:52:27 PDT 2003
On 2003-Jun-17 00:29:04 +0200, Julian Stacey <jhs at berklix.org> wrote:
>Mark Murray wrote
>> Last time I looked, we had _very_ few CTM users.
Does this include people who FTP the CTM deltas or just those on the
>At least one friend used to ftp the deltas, but didn't get them by
I get CTM by mail at work - CVSup isn't an option due to firewall
restrictions (no outgoing access other than FTP and HTTP).
At home, I normally FTP the CTM files - I find it more convenient than
CVSup since I understand how it all fits together and can easily move
the deltas between systems. It also has the advantage of being part
of the base system (and doesn't pull in Modula-2).
>Occasionally they end up on magazine CDROMs too etc.
The xEmpty files should also form a convenient way to initialise
part of the tree. I suspect downloading an xEmpty file is smaller
than CVSup'ing from nothing, even if you then use CVSup to update.
>> Is there any reason that the CTM stuff should not be a port?
Personally, I would prefer CTM to stay part of the base system - but
that's because I use it. Taking a less self-centred viewpoint,
especially given that CVSup is a port, there's probably not a great
deal of justification for having CTM in the base system.
>"Would on balance, after all aspects & users etc are considered,
>FreeBSD be a better or worse `product', if CTM was in src/ or ports/ ? "
What we need is an intermediate category for packages that are
maintained within the FreeBSD project but not in src/. This is part
of the ongoing (never-ending) attempt to modularise FreeBSD.
>My 2c.: Throw out 4M of games/ if you need to save space.
AFAIK, they've already been moved to ports.
More information about the ctm-users