Move ctm to ports?

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith]

On 12/05/11 09:16, Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>> On 12/05/11 08:26, Julian H. Stacey 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?
>>
>> 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.