Subject: Re: Bringing CVS Into the Tree
To: Todd Whitesel <email@example.com>
From: Feico Dillema <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/10/2000 12:13:04
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:49:59AM -0800, Todd Whitesel wrote:
> > tree, I'm proposing that it would be a good idea to bring CVS into
> > the main tree, rather than having it just a package. If people are
> Unless there are licensing problems, I'd be in favor of that.
> Who knows, it might improve cvs a little. (/tmp file philosophy?
> Are we supposed to have one of those?)
> > worried about `bloat,' I'm happy to consider proposals for removing
> > other, less-used tools, such as RCS, or perhaps sup.
`bloat' can also be avoided by removing or not adding things to the
base package(s) put things in more `optional' sets.
> Um, er, I think CVS uses RCS internally... Certainly it didn't work on HP/UX
> until I downloaded GNU RCS, installed that, and rebuilt CVS on the HP...
recent versions of CVS have RCS integrated I believe...
> Now the flame war: base or comp?
Hmmm, anybody want to CVS sources without compiling them? I'd see
comp would be the logical place.
...and what should RCSLOCALID be set to? Standard `Id' or `NetBSD'?
Or can we have CVS recognize both?