Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Patrick Welche <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/06/1999 15:21:32
Jonathan Stone wrote:
> >An interesting point in this: since cvs isn't a part of the NetBSD tree,
> >but is only a package, and since it was just stated that CVSup must become
> >a part of the tree in order for it to be an official distribution method,
> >does this mean that cvs must also be imported into the NetBSD source tree
> >prior to making the NetBSD source "officially" available via anoncvs?
> Sure, modulo licensing requirements. Why not? We made sup part of the
> tree some time ago. Even server-side end.
> CVS is already essential for anyone with commit access.
And then, we can get RCS_LOCALID to work once again in the "new" cvs :-)
(The old one used co,ci ie in the NetBSD tree, the new one has them built in...)
(who doesn't see the point of insisting on this cvsup business when other
options are more likely to work much sooner with less fuss ie., worry about