From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 8 20:34:27 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C31E444F for ; Fri, 8 May 2015 20:34:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nm26-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm26-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8072B1DD8 for ; Fri, 8 May 2015 20:34:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1431117260; bh=7TX9sgu4xakHJAaouTsbNW0jO58SLQpD6oIZKR3X1t0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=M2c2dB+Y1tHYomnLPXCoTd2hWGO9kizQqOMx/hYiZ/RUOMS0Yd0haQPHxrdm93gbfLZu4nUon8ykkj28N/2aIdOfXlm+vvndOFFc5KPpgj2Q1prPHCMr8BIF0QPa0GdsbG5hrqA5CkJdKJ0syp+9poe9rPyQDt7b2H0wfThWNFSf662TivW+qxl94OZuMM/bspzKP80oNWNXwcn5vZJsen2spgI41gOgQVPASsU++QUBQkq/QMIypjv3ii4Ai82iCiKk98A5fYpx1dnB8b6r581AJnh/4fGmUq64DGpXQkLJX/ghmj1BWrXguu5Zx6RKMJ8+NZoltZ0eMWXsJhLZHA== Received: from [98.139.215.141] by nm26.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2015 20:34:20 -0000 Received: from [98.139.211.196] by tm12.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2015 20:34:20 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2015 20:34:20 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 45143.85904.bm@smtp205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: y6U5CpcVM1kb7LSVFZY6QgI7YCxV0qS6ekwOg7fkI0UKFN7 5uYShSNqauJOOXx1ROLhFT4wh6Hup9s_WkawYNWwdJt2U7BtnU7Q7kqQHFWS UVplupl6pgk6NK5EFRMIUGxTHh_cjXTxVb0CX3eXlHnVP2.ZDn2CqC6hQ008 JmOl_IUC3u439.4iSB37HB77gX1DE1zKKjmBRomeGzkWVGjnIFlIJokwIyHL rMhizA.oBk596tETLxrNlco.ABqH6dT568gmnB_u4QCC_oi4kySVz3Q53yxB 5IJjubCNAi6gEfDQhq1.1Gjj1qfErH09D2H.i5hc5M3oSyq5z.rHowHUk.UO S0mHBfQIdwkNyMkHHzHVhpdMkJnaMsCXvlyIf.pEWXFkgfaVw1yQEh5kU6nE ilfj1hDrwdqHAgpSamxDhzUf9amoFEYVv7HzTGbUecAPM474ZUM.XnRbtqsZ 2KQ_tvXoVk0iuZAWHcjyuGLhOeBZJZimt04Y2rxnvHN9an3yf_eo0OaO7vd6 kGzNtnQAfkYcDEu9mGyaYQWREzMaDetgi X-Yahoo-SMTP: xcjD0guswBAZaPPIbxpWwLcp9Unf Message-ID: <554D1DD5.5080106@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 15:34:29 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni Organization: FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin , freebsd-current@freebsd.org CC: NGie Cooper , Lyndon Nerenberg Subject: Re: What to do about RCS/OpenRCS References: <554BB84F.7060605@FreeBSD.org> <554BCD4C.8090500@FreeBSD.org> <3137063.YOSa6Au8Xi@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <3137063.YOSa6Au8Xi@ralph.baldwin.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 20:34:28 -0000 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 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.