Move ctm to ports?
stephen at missouri.edu
Mon Dec 5 15:16:07 UTC 2011
On 12/05/11 09:16, Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>> On 12/05/11 08:26, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>>> Roman Kurakin wrote:
>>>> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>>>> How would people feel about removing ctm and mkctm from the base
>>>>> system, and making it into a port?
>> OK, I am persuaded - no moving CTM to ports. I'll see if I can get a
>> src commit bit, with the promise that I will only touch the ctm stuff.
>> Next - suppose I want to make svn-cur officially part of CTM. Do any
>> of you see a problem with having something in the base depending upon
>> something in the ports - namely subversion and xz? (And hopefully in
>> the next few years, subversion will become part of base.)
> It is not a good idea. How do you see the way to compile the base
> without smth in base?
> There is no problem with smth that uses smth ports-based, but not depend
> on smth ports-based.
> What do you think about plugins?
I'm not sure what you mean by plugins. But maybe you mean this:
So I envision that if I start to use xz compression, and xz is not
installed, then when you run ctm, it will issue an error like this:
"You need to install xz from the port archivers/xz."
Similarly, if you try to apply the svn deltas, you will get an error like
"You need to install subversion from the port devel/subversion."
So the errors would be run time, not compile time.
More information about the ctm-users