On 4. Dec 2011, at 18:07 , C. P. Ghost wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Roman Kurakin <r...@inse.ru> wrote: >> Christian Laursen wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> I use CVS myself from time to time, but I see no need for it to be in base >>> for that reason. >> >> 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. > > 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 -- 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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
