Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?
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 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk 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 utility that behaves differently depending >> on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code be removed >> from patch(1)? >> >> See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c lines 166 to 240 for details. > > > It seems like maybe this question should have been answered before rcs was > removed, instead of after? > (I don't know whether I would have expected you to be able to find every use > of rcs, everywhere, prior to removing it, but this is what public > declaration of intent/discussions help with.) I was asked by members of core@ to expedite the removal to 10.X - it was not done just because I felt like it. In any case its been reverted now so the discussion is moot. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?
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? Should the relevant code be removed from patch(1)? See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c lines 166 to 240 for details. It seems like maybe this question should have been answered before rcs was removed, instead of after? (I don't know whether I would have expected you to be able to find every use of rcs, everywhere, prior to removing it, but this is what public declaration of intent/discussions help with.) -Ben ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?
In message , 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 be removed >from patch(1)? > >See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c lines 166 to 240 for details. Yes, that code should be removed. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?
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 be removed from patch(1)? See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c lines 166 to 240 for details. -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
