Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:52:57 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it? Message-ID: <CAF6rxgnoBjgdUTNimhDmzi_gEqJDugWgYeuS_U8p-2qjWZvYyA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1310091525170.16692@multics.mit.edu> References: <CAF6rxgni6kw6qtLMwWQdc2SuQp%2BWa5-pTQwgSbTPa1-x_vznEA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1310091525170.16692@multics.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnoBjgdUTNimhDmzi_gEqJDugWgYeuS_U8p-2qjWZvYyA>