Re: CVS removal from the base

On 4. Dec 2011, at 18:07 , C. P. Ghost wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru> wrote:
>> Christian Laursen wrote:
>>>=20
>>> [...]
>>>=20
>>> I use CVS myself from time to time, but I see no need for it to be =
in base
>>> for that reason.
>>=20
>> By the way, since there is no way to count +/- I guess the rule "do =
not
>> brake that is working
>> or provide a way to do the same" should work. If there is a number of =
users
>> of smth it should
>> not be broken. csup/cvsup does not provide the same.
>=20
> Actually, a whole lot of stuff that was still perfectly useable has
> been deprecated over the years. I'm thinking of net/freebsd-uucp
> for example.

Which is a good example as - to my memory - it needs cvs to build.  =
Moving
our CVS (and yes the base CVS has quite some modifications still I =
think)
into ports would probably mean taking the CVS history and run into a
chicken and egg problem;-)

We'll need "our" CVS probably for another 2-3 years I think as some =
non-significant
infrastructure will still depend on it even after docs and ports moved =
away from it.

Some others have suggested things like "lpd" however which could =
probably
go to ports as well as it's anther conflict these days for most people =
using
cups or similar anyway.

I can think of more but we shouldn't be overly eager either or we'll end
up with a README in src/ saying "please install the following ports;-)"

/bz

--=20
Bjoern A. Zeeb                                 You have to have visions!
   It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do!=
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"