Re: rcs is gone?

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Julian Elischer <julian_at_freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 10/8/13 9:05 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>> On 2013-10-07, at 5:58 PM, Ian Lepore <ian_at_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