From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct  7 20:17:33 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 9D0C5CF9
 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon,  7 Oct 2013 20:17:33 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22a.google.com (mail-pb0-x22a.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22a])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76F402F8A
 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon,  7 Oct 2013 20:17:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id un15so7643074pbc.15
 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
 bh=kEjnujZderi0Wzj6Az5180kDzNLUoHE2J2cigkxdoVI=;
 b=FV2BCUCvQ4uzlYJasxFJfY5giAQal9g1eOr90S8O6zn81NK+njUwR9y5UgxfrKYOVL
 CtSnTxjuMDVqS/L4Ttki3RyMmcT4CS/caiGH1/EnBZTK7TraO2rtdTMYhq7w7FY7M1NI
 5qTwNYKMhO7OtkBUVIqNSc3dE76IKL63ZoU78=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :content-type;
 bh=kEjnujZderi0Wzj6Az5180kDzNLUoHE2J2cigkxdoVI=;
 b=FJ1DZzPrVFgyAXO5BvC0M2LRlqr5g4FdNR8zwRoP8ohnVyGFdAolM2D5DMn4X9CXdE
 vuaGXXKhFKeeXFwcmBNneTifaZxEtHc42NQZF5q0dUeNUTnWI0bv0Bx+dS0FXroVvbQd
 MjE0l0mY5PoFdwhV3+g/viwo1Hhs4BtiT1qo65ZKfqZ0/TPL7CShqkr3akVIUXF5Qmhg
 xcpAX57i6yvlmgkJKpkPMf9XnaND7OuE7STCvFdhiuHC7UY967AjhcUGMLGXlP8MyVk6
 5qZmPCEFbfAQf+1NG8WseIth9FnFRwKeM7m6XQzNAgVwArBlY6eEQTSzFH2480pH2U5C
 pHYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl2PhNxk6L3hbdUnpgzhDdpa9c61k4Sj/bRujORp/MjwjB1qlq7AxVvGnZZoD7S4BGmleQX
X-Received: by 10.66.156.199 with SMTP id wg7mr33820428pab.81.1381177053196;
 Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.70.6.3 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:17:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF6rxgni6kw6qtLMwWQdc2SuQp+Wa5-pTQwgSbTPa1-x_vznEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 20:17:33 -0000

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.

-- 
Eitan Adler