From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 9 19:31:43 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF9D1A3 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:31:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu [18.7.68.37]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A922FB9 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:31:42 +0000 (UTC) X-AuditID: 12074425-b7f1c8e0000009c7-8e-5255adeb18c4 Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 8E.43.02503.BEDA5525; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id r99JQZSt002777; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:26:35 -0400 Received: from multics.mit.edu (system-low-sipb.mit.edu [18.187.2.37]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id r99JQX4v030281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:26:34 -0400 Received: (from kaduk@localhost) by multics.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id r99JQWIF028650; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:26:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Eitan Adler Subject: Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrPt6bWiQwZYF1hYbFhRaLDrRzuTA 5DFt80E2jxmf5rMEMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZWw5NIup4CFrxbHJN9kbGI+zdDFyckgImEi8 fdjJDmGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0hgH6PEn6avTBDOBkaJgxdfMUM4B5kk+u7uZwRpERKol/i94Scz iM0ioCXR0DCJCcRmE1CRmPlmIxuILSKgJvHudTdYPbOAuMTCe71Aqzk4hAUMJQ4uAtvMKRAo 0bTjE1grr4CjxI/955ggxgdI3Jz/BuxSUQEdidX7p7BA1AhKnJz5hAVipKXEuT/X2SYwCs5C kpqFJLWAkWkVo2xKbpVubmJmTnFqsm5xcmJeXmqRroVebmaJXmpK6SZGUJiyu6juYJxwSOkQ owAHoxIPb0VZaJAQa2JZcWXuIUZJDiYlUd5Fa4BCfEn5KZUZicUZ8UWlOanFhxglOJiVRHgD u4ByvCmJlVWpRfkwKWkOFiVx3lsc9kFCAumJJanZqakFqUUwWRkODiUJ3jcgQwWLUtNTK9Iy c0oQ0kwcnCDDeYCG/wCp4S0uSMwtzkyHyJ9iVJQS5/0KkhAASWSU5sH1wtLIK0ZxoFeEeRmB SUWIB5iC4LpfAQ1mAhq8/XsIyOCSRISUVANjl7nIL03pw2sWTPzspXHlYH3Gk9Man750JvuJ b+nwkbC1sBF30zIUO1L/RCal9QN3d5gA/4T63j0OsQqn1yUKBL9YJa+VcMZwi7TI5p9tRgrS Yq92aHDysqleE5MKuVKy23mJ7RnLd1nGS44l2zqoLg01PvDY/fYmbadISZ8Eg5TPr4+62Cix FGckGmoxFxUnAgBZ/P8A/gIAAA== Cc: hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:31:43 -0000 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