Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:02:42 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Cyrille Lefevre <cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net> Cc: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: The Source Code Control System Message-ID: <p0511176bb92e7d0a3ee6@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20020613072155.GA39353@gits.dyndns.org> References: <20020612155452.A57120@FreeBSD.ORG> <p05111761b92d998deda2@[128.113.24.47]> <20020613072155.GA39353@gits.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 9:21 AM +0200 6/13/02, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: >On Wed, Jun 12, 2002, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > Hmm. It might be nice to have around as a port, but I don't >> see why it would need to be in the base system. We just > >maybe because they are required by SUSV3 : > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/ Strictly speaking, it is not a requirement. That is not to say that I am against having it in the base system, it's just that I don't think there is any groundswell of demand for it, and there is nothing about it which implies it must be a part of the base system. (if sccs needed some kind of hooks into the kernel, for instance, then that would imply it should be in the base OS). The program itself should work just as fine as a port. I do think it would be interesting to have somewhere, and I myself see no stigma attached to having something as a port. /usr/ports/posix, perhaps? :-) So, think of my position as a weak vote for sccs as a port, and being pretty close to neutral on having it in the base. Opinions were asked for, and that is my opinion... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0511176bb92e7d0a3ee6>