Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:41:19 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> Cc: peter@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: duplicate CVS modules in merged CVSROOT Message-ID: <20041217144119.GA1569@straylight.m.ringlet.net> In-Reply-To: <41C1F999.2080008@cronyx.ru> References: <20041216011116.P4313@woozle.rinet.ru> <xzpk6ridxrk.fsf@dwp.des.no> <41C1F999.2080008@cronyx.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:09:45AM +0300, Roman Kurakin wrote: > Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav: >=20 > >Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >=20 > > > >>It seems some checks should be added to module merging code... > >> =20 > >> > > > >...or somebody should stop using the merged CVSROOT. > > > I suggest to add prefixes like src_cut, port_cut while merging. As discussed on Another List, that's the way it is *supposed* to be, at least for the ports_* prefix. That's the way it's been for ages now - for ports which conflict with the src tree, a 'ports_' prefix is added to the CVSROOT module definition. Lots of examples in the CVSROOT-ports/modules file :) G'luck, Peter --=20 Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@cnsys.bg roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 This sentence contradicts itself - or rather - well, no, actually it doesn'= t! --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBwvAP7Ri2jRYZRVMRAiZCAJ9NOPwQAARVMdXxonTFdDZciPmd0gCgxXiV voycySi7/c1ezEgTNwi5Y+U= =tugD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041217144119.GA1569>