On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 10/8/13 9:05 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > >> On 2013-10-07, at 5:58 PM, Ian Lepore <i...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> I have not re-read those threads to see just how much of the discussion >>> involved rcs, I just spot-checked a few and confirmed my memory that it >>> showed up in some of the messages there. >>> >> I don't see any discussion as to why the code (CVS, in this case) *needs* >> to be removed. >> >> What, in the current builds of 10.x, is broken by leaving RCS/CVS in >> place? And what, as 10.x moves forward towards a public release, will be >> broken by leaving this code in the base? >> > I have less of a problem with replacing CVS with svnlite than I have with > removing RCS. > After all CVS's main reason for being in the system has switched to > svnlite. > And if you are using CVS yourself for other developement, you are probbaly > further > on with installing a system and are already installing other packages. > that's not the case with RCS. I know that people use it as part of their > install > procedure. Plus RCS is used within other tools. e.g. patch etc. It's also > a REALLY SMALL > utility, suitable for embedding into scripts etc. (the Unix way(TM)) I > consider it a base utility. > It does a simple operation on a file. > > the discussion in arch was A YEAR AGO, was hidden under a differnet title, > and DID NOT RESULT > in a clear mandate to remove RCS. > > Please put it back, and inthe mena while while we discuss it properly this > time, please revert the commit > (official request.. as described in the group rules). I would like to see RCS remain in base as well. Many enterprise distro still ship it by default too. There is no compelling reason to remove it. -- Adam Vande More _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
