* xio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.11.12 11:47:00+]:
> 2. CVS is more difficult to setup and does not work out of the box for
> /etc.
>
> a. you have to first import the whole /etc tree to cvs
> b. symbolic links will be ignored.
> c. automated changes will be de
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 06:55:58PM +0100, Andras BALI wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:47:00AM +, xio wrote:
>
> > I have been playing around first with RCS and then CVS for /etc.
>
> Maybe you could check out `changetrack' before trying to implement it
> on your own. I use it for all my i
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 11:47:00AM +, xio wrote:
> I have been playing around first with RCS and then CVS for /etc.
Maybe you could check out `changetrack' before trying to implement it
on your own. I use it for all my important config files and it's
really great.
Regards,
--
BALI, Andra's
Dear debian-users,
I have been playing around first with RCS and then CVS for /etc. I am
interested in comments on some things I have observed, and maybe some
answers to some of my questions:
1. RCS is easy to setup up and work out of the box for /etc. The only
limitations I could find are
4 matches
Mail list logo