impossible to use.
More on topic, since so many users depend on rcs, I say leave it in base, at
least until OpenRCS or Fossil can replace it.
Tom
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
from Devin Teske:
I'm late to the party again ;D (didn't realize the rcs thread had turned BE)
Both problems can be solved.
The loading of the kernel *after* choosing your boot device is trivial.
We've been doing it at $work for *years* (almost a decade?)
I can put that in, whenever
from Devin Teske:
I'm late to the party again ;D (didn't realize the rcs thread had turned BE)
Both problems can be solved.
The loading of the kernel *after* choosing your boot device is trivial.
We've been doing it at $work for *years* (almost a decade?)
I can put that in, whenever
Sorry for previous typo in From: line, missing right angle bracket at end.
Then, in a finger error, I resent that message just before finding the error
and making the needed correction.
from Devin Teske:
I'm late to the party again ;D (didn't realize the rcs thread had turned BE)
Both
be few bugs to worry about.
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very
simple way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any
change.
With all due respect Julian, The more we discuss this more this really
points to the problem
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very
simple way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any
change.
With all due respect Julian, The more we discuss this more this really
points to the problem that FreeBSD appears
On 10/8/13 8:04 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very
simple way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any
change.
With all due respect Julian, The more we discuss this more this really
points
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
On 10/8/13 8:04 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very
simple way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any
change.
With all due
On 10/8/13 8:26 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org
mailto:bri...@mu.org wrote:
On 10/8/13 8:04 AM, sth...@nethelp.no mailto:sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013, at 10:33, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Oh I have done that in the past, but why the editing, the makefiles, the
etc, etc, etc. Why isn't there a customize.freebsd.org where I just hit
a few checkboxes, save and then hit download?
A metaport builder web service would be
On 10/8/13, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 10/7/13 11:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please install either devel/rcs or devel/rcs57. If not, be
sure
On 10/08/13 16:36, Kurt Lidl wrote:
On 10/8/13, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 10/7/13 11:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please install either devel
. However, the 7364
lines in ChangeLog after 2010-02-04 suggests that there may
be few bugs to worry about.
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very simple
way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any
change.
With all due respect Julian
On Oct 7, 2013 7:31 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
Okay folks, can we make a call about keeping the RCS tools in the base?
The proponents wanting to remove RCS need to speak up and make their
technical case.
Perhaps slightly off-topic, but how about we move into the 21st
System need to be:
- self-bootstrapping
- POSIX-compliant
- administerable
- with local shell
- with local tools (e.g. RCS, vim, git...)
- with remote shell (SSH)
- with remote tools (e.g. Puppet)
- with enterprise integration (e.g. Kerberos, LDAP, 802.1x, SMB...)
- useful for end
System need to be:
- self-bootstrapping
- POSIX-compliant
- administerable
- with local shell
- with local tools (e.g. RCS, vim, git...)
- with remote shell (SSH)
- with remote tools (e.g. Puppet)
- with enterprise integration (e.g. Kerberos, LDAP, 802.1x, SMB...)
- useful for end
first take it out of the box, does The Base System need to be:
- self-bootstrapping
- POSIX-compliant
- administerable
- with local shell
- with local tools (e.g. RCS, vim, git...)
- with remote shell (SSH)
- with remote tools (e.g. Puppet)
- with enterprise integration (e.g
[ My sympathies lean toward those who want to retain RCS,
but as I dont personaly use it, that's all on that. ] ...
screen, zsh, vim-lite, git why is that so manual for me? Why can't I
just register a package set somewhere so that all I have to type in is
alfred.perlstein.devel into a box
there was no development for 15 years. However, the 7364
lines in ChangeLog after 2010-02-04 suggests that there may
be few bugs to worry about.
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very simple
way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote:
You're right on the money, to be honest this is one of the reasons why
I've switched to using OSX as my desktop OS.
zsh, vim, screen by default. and upgrades work. At the end of the day
I'm spending time doing work, not
that there is a very strict definition of base and that it wont change as
the ports tree changes.
Eg, you install 10.0 and get the rcs package from that. You then do an
install of 10.0 a yeat later and install rcs. If it comes from the
10-stable pkgng set, itll pick up the latest version, not the 10.0
that
there may
be few bugs to worry about.
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a
very simple way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any
updates or any change.
With all due respect
code from FreeBSD (whether prudent or not).
That plus the age of the code is good enough reason to ditch it! huzzah!
Plus we can make RCSBSD along with it.
Is such a project underway? I.e. an RCS of some kind from FreeBSD?
OpenBSD went through this a while ago and use OpenRCS
of
poeple use ci/co on /etc
becasue it is just there
+1
Folks, this is just plain a major violation of the
Principle of Least
Amazement. RCS is ideal for keeping track of my
configuration
In message 525422b6.9040...@mu.org, Alfred Perlstein writes:
On 10/8/13 8:04 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very
simple way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any
change.
With all due
In message 52542687.7000...@pix.net, Kurt Lidl writes:
On 10/8/13, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 10/7/13 11:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please
In message CAETOPp0imH3LCM2gwe1a_TJD+q5YoWhuJbR0YhHpux0qe8irtA@mail.gmail.c
om
, Jos Backus writes:
On Oct 7, 2013 7:31 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
Okay folks, can we make a call about keeping the RCS tools in the base?
The proponents wanting to remove RCS need to speak
be few bugs to worry about.
I think the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a
very simple way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any
updates or any change.
With all due respect Julian, The more we discuss this more
to a package. A number of users and companies like
that there is a very strict definition of base and that it wont change as
the ports tree changes.
Eg, you install 10.0 and get the rcs package from that. You then do an
install of 10.0 a yeat later and install rcs. If it comes from the
10-stable pkgng set
Am 08.10.2013 um 22:29 schrieb Cy Schubert cy.schub...@komquats.com:
A Red Hat-like kickstart or Solaris jumpstart possibly?
http://blog.hostileadmin.com/2013/04/11/installing-freebsd-via-cobbler/
I wish it was using bsdinstall, though.
I've iterated my views on these things a few times.
I honestly am not all _that_ interested in trying to build a polished OS.
I'd rather participate in building an OS toolkit that let's PCBSD, pfsense,
that storage appliance I keep forgetting the name of (heh), etc all build
OSes on top of it.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Cy Schubert wrote:
I've started work on a port (not that this was my highest priority but
received a private email that I may want to do this instead of rcs57).
Would the majority here rather have it in base? Just finished schlepping
the OpenBSD source to my laptop (the link
On Oct 8, 2013 1:37 PM, Cy Schubert cy.schub...@komquats.com wrote:
In message
CAETOPp0imH3LCM2gwe1a_TJD+q5YoWhuJbR0YhHpux0qe8irtA@mail.gmail.c
om
, Jos Backus writes:
On Oct 7, 2013 7:31 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
Okay folks, can we make a call about keeping the RCS
On 10/8/13 4:33 PM, Cy Schubert wrote:
In message 52542687.7000...@pix.net, Kurt Lidl writes:
On 10/8/13, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 10/7/13 11:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095
Hello, Daniel.
You wrote 8 октября 2013 г., 19:40:23:
DN If they get the package repositories back up - which I assume will
DN happen before any official releases from 10 - it should just be pkg
DN install rcs. As challenges go, that doesn't seem too bad?
Topic starter mentioned
On 2013-10-08, at 11:17 AM, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't kept up-to-date with all the developments, but isn't this part of
the bsdinstall/pkgng plan? Once the pkgng repos are all available and
populated, then bsdinstall will be able to install packages from there during
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:56:46PM -0400, Kurt Lidl wrote:
On 10/8/13 4:33 PM, Cy Schubert wrote:
In message 52542687.7000...@pix.net, Kurt Lidl writes:
On 10/8/13, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 10/7/13 11:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please install either devel/rcs or devel/rcs57. If not, be
sure to check out the alternatives (pun stolen and intended).
Perhaps, a note
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Steve Kargl
s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please install either devel/rcs or devel/rcs57
'ci -l xxx' is a
trivial way to maintain local revision control.
For small stand-alone systems, RCS is more than adequate. Why ditch it?
--lyndon
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
if there isn't a basic
RCS in the base system.
___
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
, a simple 'ci -l xxx' is a trivial way to maintain local
revision control.
And sorry, what I left out was how having ci/co in the base is immensely
helpful with the installer scripts I write.
... and probably screw up change control management for those who use rcs
for that...
--
Igor M
the
(possibly customized) installation process. This is impossible if there
isn't a basic RCS in the base system.
Finally, an issue with missing SCCS in the base is for those of us who work in
shops behind an air-gapped firewall.
Install from ports is a non-starter. Our development systems
) to keep a record of changes made during the (possibly
customized) installation process. This is impossible if there isn't a basic
RCS in the base system.
Finally, an issue with missing SCCS in the base is for those of us who work in
shops behind an air-gapped firewall.
Install from ports is a non
On 7 October 2013 22:15, Andreas Nilsson andrn...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it has been announced, and is available as a port.
So there's no version control in the base at all now?.. When did FreeBSD
decide to move away from distributing a usable OS? Why not just distribute
a kernel and a few
Hello, Igor.
You wrote 8 октября 2013 г., 1:26:07:
Well, it has been announced, and is available as a port.
IM So there's no version control in the base at all now?.. When did FreeBSD
IM decide to move away from distributing a usable OS? Why not just distribute
IM a kernel and a few bits that
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:26:07PM +0100, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 7 October 2013 22:15, Andreas Nilsson andrn...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it has been announced, and is available as a port.
So there's no version control in the base at all now?.. When did FreeBSD
decide to move away
On 7 October 2013 22:28, Lev Serebryakov l...@freebsd.org wrote:
svnlite? :)
Thanks Lev Glen- it's something to explore albeit that screws up quite a
lot of stuff on this end...
Cheers,
--
Igor M.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
On 7 Oct 2013, at 22:14, Lyndon Nerenberg lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
Install from ports is a non-starter. Our development systems will never be
connected to the internet for a ports upgrade. In this environment, in-base
RCS is a very useful tool.
Why is install from packages any harder than
:
Install from ports is a non-starter. Our development systems will
never be connected to the internet for a ports upgrade. In this
environment, in-base RCS is a very useful tool.
Why is install from packages any harder than installing the base system?
If you need RCS, then put the pkg and rcs
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please install either devel/rcs or devel/rcs57. If not, be
sure to check out the alternatives (pun stolen and intended).
rc.subr
? Just include the RCS package on your
install media, and add pkg_add /path/to/rcs.tgz or pkg add
/path/to/rcs.txz to the end of your install script.
1 extra tarball, 1 extra line in your install script, and everything
carries on as before.
--
Freddie Cash
fjwc...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please install either devel/rcs or devel/rcs57. If not, be
sure to check out the alternatives (pun stolen and intended).
Thanks for removing this piece
in the shop. (I
don't make the rules. Suffice to say the company is very paranoid about their
code getting out into the wild.)
Having RCS in the base system is very useful. We use it to track changes to
bits of /etc on the machines where we don't do wholesale customizations.
(Those ones get git
, but it is painful.
And those ports can't necessarily walk on to all the systems in the shop.
(I don't make the rules. Suffice to say the company is very paranoid about
their code getting out into the wild.)
Having RCS in the base system is very useful. We use it to track changes to
bits of /etc
On 2013-10-07, at 3:45 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
Having RCS in the base system is very useful. We use it to track changes to
bits of /etc on the machines where we don't do wholesale customizations.
(Those ones get git, but they also get an install of /usr/ports
...@orthanc.ca wrote:
On 2013-10-07, at 3:45 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
Having RCS in the base system is very useful. We use it to track
changes to bits of /etc on the machines where we don't do wholesale
customizations. (Those ones get git, but they also get an install
On 2013-10-07, at 4:37 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Then you and others should stand up and provide feedback like this far, far
earlier in the development process.
So when was this first discussed? I've been on -current for over a decade. If
I missed a prior discussion I
On 10/8/13 7:37 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi!
Then you and others should stand up and provide feedback like this far, far
earlier in the development process.
Adiran this is the first I've heard of removing RCS.
I would have screamed about it had I heard anything..
so now that I officially
feedback like this far,
far
earlier in the development process.
Adiran this is the first I've heard of removing RCS.
I would have screamed about it had I heard anything..
so now that I officially register my request for a backout
can we have it back please?
If everyone who communicates
on the
mailing lists. Slow and dumb (in the media-rich sense), but everyone knows
what's going on.
In that light, if there is a rational argument for pulling RCS out of the base,
propose it here on the -current list and let's all discuss it.
--lyndon
what's going on.
In that light, if there is a rational argument for pulling RCS out of the
base, propose it here on the -current list and let's all discuss it.
I still do suggest also getting a relationship with the FreeBSD foundation
and airing grievances with them. They're interested
On 10/7/13 11:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please install either devel/rcs or devel/rcs57. If not, be
sure to check out the alternatives (pun
necessarily walk on to all the systems in the shop. (I
don't make the rules. Suffice to say the company is very paranoid about their
code getting out into the wild.)
Having RCS in the base system is very useful. We use it to track changes to
bits of /etc on the machines where we don't do
On 8 October 2013 01:00, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
[snip]
Oh, I know it's an up-hill battle. But I honestly thought that this had
been communicated on a list somewhere. It seems.. not. I don't know why.
Gah.
It's been communicated at Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:43:21 -0400, but that
Julian Elischer wrote this message on Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:01 +0800:
not a big thing but I believe that a lot of poeple use ci/co on /etc
becasue it is just there
+1
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
All that I will do, has been done, All that
Glen Barber wrote this message on Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 17:29 -0400:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:26:07PM +0100, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 7 October 2013 22:15, Andreas Nilsson andrn...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it has been announced, and is available as a port.
So there's no version
On 10/8/13 5:29 AM, Glen Barber wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:26:07PM +0100, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 7 October 2013 22:15, Andreas Nilsson andrn...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it has been announced, and is available as a port.
So there's no version control in the base at all now?.. When
. RCS is ideal for keeping track of my configuration files
in /etc. What do we gain by removing it? Roughly 640 kilobytes of
executable code and 60 kilobytes of compressed man pages. Had the
community that hangs our on this mailing list heard about this when it
could still have been described
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:36:42PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
So there's no version control in the base at all now?.. When did FreeBSD
decide to move away from distributing a usable OS? Why not just distribute
a kernel and a few bits that are barely sufficient for the initial set up,
On 2013-10-07, at 5:40 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
svnlite?
fail
I won't go that far, immediately.
But I need a tool that lets me migrate the history of my RCS files to the new
regime.
And the new tools(s) *must* be part of the base system. (Migration tools
included
Glen Barber wrote this message on Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 20:42 -0400:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:36:42PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
So there's no version control in the base at all now?.. When did FreeBSD
decide to move away from distributing a usable OS? Why not just
distribute
of the discussion
involved rcs, I just spot-checked a few and confirmed my memory that it
showed up in some of the messages there.
-- Ian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any
don't make the rules. Suffice to say the company is very
paranoid about their code getting out into the wild.)
Having RCS in the base system is very useful. We use it to track changes to
bits of /etc on the machines where we don't do wholesale customizations.
(Those ones get git
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:54:23PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
No, not really.
# mkdir local
# svnadmin create ./local
# svn import /etc file:///$PWD/local
besides the s/svn/svnlite/ you forgot... It doesn't work... Sure it
WITH_SVN in src.conf will install svnlite
I have not re-read those threads to see just how much of the discussion
involved rcs, I just spot-checked a few and confirmed my memory that it
showed up in some of the messages there.
Hold on a SECOND! Those messages had a subject line of Removing CVS from
base, if one is not affected
On 8 October 2013 01:59, Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:54:23PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
[snip]
Plus, I was quite reasured that svn isn't smart enough to realize that
a path might be a file: url relative to the current working directory...
I don't
On 2013-10-07, at 5:58 PM, Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org wrote:
I have not re-read those threads to see just how much of the discussion
involved rcs, I just spot-checked a few and confirmed my memory that it
showed up in some of the messages there.
I don't see any discussion as to why the code
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:03:44AM +0100, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 8 October 2013 01:59, Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:54:23PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
[snip]
Plus, I was quite reasured that svn isn't smart enough to realize that
a path
?
No, not really.
# mkdir local # svnadmin create ./local # svn import /etc
file:///$PWD/local
There is a feature that is lacking from svn: the permissions is not
quite tightened up. With RCS, for instance, a mode 600 file would
result in a mode 400 ,v file. With subversion, everything
On 10/8/13 9:05 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On 2013-10-07, at 5:58 PM, Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org wrote:
I have not re-read those threads to see just how much of the discussion
involved rcs, I just spot-checked a few and confirmed my memory that it
showed up in some of the messages there.
I
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:01:34AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 10/7/13 11:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS please install either devel/rcs
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10/8/13 9:05 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On 2013-10-07, at 5:58 PM, Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org wrote:
I have not re-read those threads to see just how much of the discussion
involved rcs, I just spot-checked
On 10/7/13 6:30 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:01:34AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 10/7/13 11:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 10:43:21PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
Hey all,
RCS was removed from the base system in r256095. If you still want to
use RCS
, this is just plain a major violation of the Principle of Least
Amazement. RCS is ideal for keeping track of my configuration files
in /etc. What do we gain by removing it?
Less GPL code in FreeBSD?
--
Steve
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.comwrote:
I would like to see RCS remain in base as well. Many enterprise distro
still ship it by default too. There is no compelling reason to remove it.
I sort of retract that statement. I thought the base RCS was already
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/07/13 18:37, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Adam Vande More
amvandem...@gmail.comwrote:
I would like to see RCS remain in base as well. Many enterprise
distro still ship it by default too
becasue it is just there
+1
Folks, this is just plain a major violation of the Principle of Least
Amazement. RCS is ideal for keeping track of my configuration files
in /etc. What do we gain by removing it?
Less GPL code in FreeBSD?
not a problem unless you plan in shipping a changed version
On 2013-10-07, at 6:05 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
I don't see any discussion as to why the code (CVS, in this case) *needs* to
be removed.
My stupidity: I meant RCS, not CVS.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http
On 8 October 2013 02:49, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10/8/13 9:33 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
[snip]
Less GPL code in FreeBSD?
not a problem unless you plan in shipping a changed version of it on your
product??
... and there's already a WITHOUT_RCS switch if the GPLed RCS
Glen Barber wrote this message on Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 20:59 -0400:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 05:54:23PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
No, not really.
# mkdir local
# svnadmin create ./local
# svn import /etc file:///$PWD/local
besides the s/svn/svnlite/ you
Okay folks, can we make a call about keeping the RCS tools in the base?
The proponents wanting to remove RCS need to speak up and make their technical
case.
--lyndon
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
it! huzzah!
Plus we can make RCSBSD along with it.
Is such a project underway? I.e. an RCS of some kind from FreeBSD?
OpenBSD went through this a while ago and use OpenRCS -- is that even
remotely appropriate for use in FreeBSD?
From reading most of both thread(s), it seems there's at least some
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 07:31:01PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Okay folks, can we make a call about keeping the RCS tools in the base?
The proponents wanting to remove RCS need to speak up and make their
technical case.
I don't care if rcs stays or goes, but ...
There is a 15 year gap
On 2013-10-07, at 8:15 PM, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
Maybe there was no development for 15 years. However, the 7364
lines in ChangeLog after 2010-02-04 suggests that there may
be few bugs to worry about.
Dear Troll,
Demonstrate one.
is good enough reason to ditch it! huzzah!
Plus we can make RCSBSD along with it.
Is such a project underway? I.e. an RCS of some kind from FreeBSD?
OpenBSD went through this a while ago and use OpenRCS -- is that even
remotely appropriate for use in FreeBSD?
From reading most of both thread(s
+0800:
not a big thing but I believe that a lot of poeple use ci/co on /etc
becasue it is just there
+1
Folks, this is just plain a major violation of the Principle of Least
Amazement. RCS is ideal for keeping track of my configuration files
in /etc. What do we gain by removing it?
Less
there
+1
Folks, this is just plain a major violation of the
Principle of Least
Amazement. RCS is ideal for keeping track of my
configuration files
in /etc. What do we gain by removing it?
Less GPL code in FreeBSD
the fact is that most direct users of RCS use it in a very
simple way, and
it works just fine for that. with no real need for any updates or any
change.
Dear Troll,
Demonstrate one.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org
of Least
Amazement. RCS is ideal for keeping track of my configuration files
in /etc. What do we gain by removing it?
Less GPL code in FreeBSD?
not a problem unless you plan in shipping a changed version of it on your
product??
Most new versions of GPL licensed code are converted
101 - 200 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
