The easiest way to tell CVS that a specific file type is binary, is via the
CVSROOT/cvswrappers

Here's the comment at the beginning of the file


# This file affects handling of files based on their names.
#
# The -t/-f options allow one to treat directories of files
# as a single file, or to transform a file in other ways on
# its way in and out of CVS.
#
# The -m option specifies whether CVS attempts to merge files.
#
# The -k option specifies keyword expansion (e.g. -kb for binary).
#
# Format of wrapper file ($CVSROOT/CVSROOT/cvswrappers or .cvswrappers)
#
#  wildcard     [option value][option value]...
#
#  where option is one of
#  -f           from cvs filter         value: path to filter
#  -t           to cvs filter           value: path to filter
#  -m           update methodology      value: MERGE or COPY
#  -k           expansion mode          value: b, o, kkv, &c
#
#  and value is a single-quote delimited value.
# For example:
#*.gif -k 'b'

To add png, doc, and what every other type of binary files
*.png -k 'b' -m COPY
*.doc -k 'b' -m COPY

This way, other files (like README) will have the lf's converted.

-shack

On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 04:25:25PM -0800, Paul Rohr wrote:
> You may want to pay more attention than usual to your next CVS checkout.  
> 
> We've been accumulating a lot of binary files in our CVS archives without 
> letting CVS *know* they're binary, by making sure the file got added that 
> way in the first place:
> 
>   cvs add -kb foo.png bar.doc other_binary_file
> 
> This means that if you're not on the platform where those files were checked 
> in, it'll go through linefeed conversion, producing gibberish. 
> 
> Thus, I've just performed the necessary CVS magic incantations to let it 
> know that all *.doc and *.png files in the following trees are binary:
> 
>   wv/*
>   abi/shots/*
> 
> This seems to be working much better for me, but if you want to be paranoid, 
> it may be worth archiving a copy of your current view before your next "cvs 
> update" in these subtrees.  It also may take a bit longer than you're used 
> to.  :-)
> 
> Paul
> 



Reply via email to