Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:26:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it? Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1310091525170.16692@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgni6kw6qtLMwWQdc2SuQp%2BWa5-pTQwgSbTPa1-x_vznEA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF6rxgni6kw6qtLMwWQdc2SuQp%2BWa5-pTQwgSbTPa1-x_vznEA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1310091525170.16692>