From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 9 20:53:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8705CDB for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:53:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com) Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE240250A for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:53:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id p10so1548742pdj.18 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=9Z+M+zdKUUZK1X5UPEgUsCWGEbKB+K4x16/+Lcl5QhA=; b=Z5COq1jBBNdOSAdkLnjJ6ZREhO//0tivt49opBYcUEJiUADLhVi8Dym0DEj+ZX+M/8 3Bdcv/QnhgcovS6l6zR9SsctUlt/5Xqq0LOi9X7lVlcC5b7dBTzxJuLspzXC1UHc1pKB FMgh0ta++oE5gTWtJjE9+ZJAy1ckUSGKbUldY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=9Z+M+zdKUUZK1X5UPEgUsCWGEbKB+K4x16/+Lcl5QhA=; b=nOH7RgpfkP/ChNvrPz3srUE9xboAzphtHoPjvTGzoMzdYYFSdjb9bAb2Sf6S43iNvZ Unm6WyVVwHyPUsQQKKcB/KEZ2QDDii7QXxXQFlDRumB9USRI6J7mFlMJK8uwFk5OfuTg jbnFRLyyWATSOFccU3bck+y/ed5IYTIBXgCpGQAKjeSgpdpkaNsrDqkVClqXVlUh1o1O wSiNXE68PZn5cUKUjgzRQtU1+qcflnDSdCceHhZ6nGp0HXoGq5OV6gAu4b6YIxd+zu0d BuuOjwYiGxRVzRb8A1wQ0MKeXD4SM1oRyIZP+vxOKoeYp24+eQ7RQCpEB3lT9Q/GhUN+ Ikzg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlarMsurM4YAtUWDC586eRczU6z91ZNjivcAgc5440dZiPPmbh0On3vb+KUzYvzLIj1pp0H X-Received: by 10.68.234.73 with SMTP id uc9mr9856026pbc.142.1381352007844; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:53:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.70.6.3 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:52:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Eitan Adler Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:52:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it? To: Benjamin Kaduk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 20:53:28 -0000 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