Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 15:34:29 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Subject: Re: What to do about RCS/OpenRCS Message-ID: <554D1DD5.5080106@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3137063.YOSa6Au8Xi@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <554BB84F.7060605@FreeBSD.org> <554BCD4C.8090500@FreeBSD.org> <CAGHfRMAc4XwqME8Nmi05oy1HBWZZTGLsWoXwkQw3W542GCZB1g@mail.gmail.com> <3137063.YOSa6Au8Xi@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi; On 08/05/2015 10:44 a.m., John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, May 07, 2015 04:18:38 PM NGie Cooper wrote: >> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> Hello; >>> >>> On 05/07/15 14:56, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >>>> On Thu, 7 May 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>>> >>>>> Unfortunately I don't use RCS enough (it looks like I should though) so >>>>> I am not in a good position to take the next step and deal with any >>>>> fallout it may produce. >>>> >>>> If we can have a build-knob to disable GNU RCS and enable the new one I >>>> will happily twist up the new version and hammer on it. >>>> >>> Yes, that's usually the next step in the process. It is a little bit messy >>> because >>> there is a WITHOUT_RCS option and openrcs doesn't have rcsfreeze (and >>> perhaps something else that we don't use). >>> >>> I really want to check out first if there is some strong opinion against >>> OpenRCS. Perhaps someone that has used it before and thinks it is a >>> bad idea. >>> >>> It looks like there are voices against it, so those have to be addressed >>> first. >> Setting WITHOUT_RCS also breaks etcupdate (the tool requires rcs >> bits); check with jhb first to make sure that OpenRCS works with >> etcupdate. >> Cheers! > I think this can be fixed by using diff3 instead of merge, I just haven't > sat down and figured out the correct incantation. > > That said, I think that having a not-quite-working rcs (OpenRCS) in base > is worse than having no rcs. If OpenRCS is improved as per Xin's notes > then just switching over is probably the path of least resistance. To be honest, I just want to have options, and unfortunately OpenRCS is not one at this time. > I guess I see the following options: > > 1) Just leave GNU RCS in the tree. > > 2) Improve OpenRCS so it can be swapped in. > > 3) Remove RCS dependencies from other parts of the tree (e.g. etcupdate) > and import just a /bin/ident binary (perhaps from OpenRCS). > > Both 2) and 3) require some work. I suspect 3) requires less. :) I honestly don't see a real problem with (1): we do want to replace as much GNU software as we can but not at the cost of making our life unnecessarily difficult. No. 2 is something that has to be reported/submitted upstream before we can adopt it. We do that with major components we take from other places and it is the proven, safe way to do it. No. 3 is something that seems necessary in any case: apparently the WITHOUT_RCS option has been always broken. I am currently reporting (2), but doing the /bin/ident part of (3) looks easy enough that I may do it at a later time ;). Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?554D1DD5.5080106>