On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:10:44AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> Fritjof, have you let the gnu rcs project know about the segfault?
> Maybe see how they choose to fix things and then follow their lead?
That will only slow things down. Do what -L -U does is better, imo.
-Otto
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Nicholas Marriott
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that GNU RCS segfaulting for -u -l is enough justification to do
> > what we like, so a message (and last flag wins) like -L/-U would be fine
> > with me.
> >
> > But if we want to do what they probably "meant" to happen then better to
> > match -l -u like Fritjof's diff.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 12:55:35PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 12:56:10AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, check out what we do with rcs -L and -U...
> > >
> > > I kinda like that, because it tells you exactly what it is doing.
> > >
> > > -Otto
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 12:54:13AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> > > > > Matching GNU RCS seems preferable to me but I don't feel strongly
> > > > > about
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't mention this in the man page, it hardly seems like
> > > > > behaviour
> > > > > anyone should (or will need to) rely on.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:41:52PM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> > > > > > posix commands (like ls(1) for example) keep the last option when
> > > > > > mutually exclusive options are specified. does it make sense to
> > > > > > keep rcs consistent with that convention? also is a man page diff
> > > > > > needed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Nicholas Marriott
> > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The existing behaviour isn't wildly useful, makes sense to me, ok
> > > > > > > nicm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:33:33PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hi tech,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> the OpenRCS rcs command produces the following output if -l and
> > > > > > >> -u is
> > > > > > >> used in the same command:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> $ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt
> > > > > > >> RCS file: foo.txt,v
> > > > > > >> 1.1 locked
> > > > > > >> 1.1 unlocked
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> $ rcs -u1.1 -l1.1 foo.txt
> > > > > > >> RCS file: foo.txt,v
> > > > > > >> 1.1 locked
> > > > > > >> 1.1 unlocked
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I've looked at GnuRCS and it has another way to handle these
> > > > > > >> parameters
> > > > > > >> (it seems the other BSDs use GnuRCS, too).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Debian 7.5:
> > > > > > >> $ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt
> > > > > > >> RCS file: foo.txt,v
> > > > > > >> rcs: foo.txt,v: no lock set on revision 1.1
> > > > > > >> 1.1 locked
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> $ rcs -u1.1 -l1.1 foo.txt
> > > > > > >> Segmentation fault
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Well, I think the "Segmentation fault" isn't that important :),
> > > > > > >> but GnuRCS
> > > > > > >> does not lock and unlock a file by using the same command like
> > > > > > >> OpenRCS.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I think the different implementations of RCS should share the
> > > > > > >> same
> > > > > > >> behaviour:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> $ rcs -l1.1 -u1.1 foo.txt
> > > > > > >> RCS file: foo.txt,v
> > > > > > >> 1.1 locked
> > > > > > >> done
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> $ rcs -u1.1 -l1.1 foo.txt
> > > > > > >> RCS file: foo.txt,v
> > > > > > >> 1.1 unlocked
> > > > > > >> done
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> fritjof
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Index: rcsprog.c
> > > > > > >> ===================================================================
> > > > > > >> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/rcs/rcsprog.c,v
> > > > > > >> retrieving revision 1.151
> > > > > > >> diff -u -p -r1.151 rcsprog.c
> > > > > > >> --- rcsprog.c 12 Jul 2011 21:00:32 -0000 1.151
> > > > > > >> +++ rcsprog.c 3 Aug 2014 15:42:34 -0000
> > > > > > >> @@ -234,9 +234,10 @@ rcs_main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > > > > >> lkmode = RCS_LOCK_STRICT;
> > > > > > >> break;
> > > > > > >> case 'l':
> > > > > > >> - /* XXX - Check with -u flag. */
> > > > > > >> - lrev = rcs_optarg;
> > > > > > >> - rcsflags |= RCSPROG_LFLAG;
> > > > > > >> + if (!(rcsflags & RCSPROG_UFLAG)) {
> > > > > > >> + lrev = rcs_optarg;
> > > > > > >> + rcsflags |= RCSPROG_LFLAG;
> > > > > > >> + }
> > > > > > >> break;
> > > > > > >> case 'm':
> > > > > > >> if (logstr != NULL)
> > > > > > >> @@ -272,9 +273,10 @@ rcs_main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > > > > >> lkmode = RCS_LOCK_LOOSE;
> > > > > > >> break;
> > > > > > >> case 'u':
> > > > > > >> - /* XXX - Check with -l flag. */
> > > > > > >> - urev = rcs_optarg;
> > > > > > >> - rcsflags |= RCSPROG_UFLAG;
> > > > > > >> + if (!(rcsflags & RCSPROG_LFLAG)) {
> > > > > > >> + urev = rcs_optarg;
> > > > > > >> + rcsflags |= RCSPROG_UFLAG;
> > > > > > >> + }
> > > > > > >> break;
> > > > > > >> case 'V':
> > > > > > >> printf("%s\n", rcs_version);
> > > > > > >
