Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

2013-10-09 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
I guess I'm late to the party (catching up on the whole thread took a while...) On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Eitan Adler wrote: patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending on whether a port is installed?

Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

2013-10-09 Thread Eitan Adler
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: I guess I'm late to the party (catching up on the whole thread took a while...) On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Eitan Adler wrote: patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are we okay with a base system

Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

2013-10-09 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 04:17:03PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote: patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. At the SCCS behavior is part of (the SCCS option in ) POSIX 2008. So far I haven't seen any reason for messing with it. Joerg

Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

2013-10-07 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message caf6rxgni6kw6qtlmwwqdc2suqp+wa5-ptqwgsbtpa1-x_vz...@mail.gmail.com , Eitan Adler writes: patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code