This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: New on sources: rcs-5.7-1
- From: Jason Tishler <jason at tishler dot net>
- To: Stipe Tolj <tolj at wapme-systems dot de>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 10:22:31 -0500
- Subject: Re: New on sources: rcs-5.7-1
- References: <3C4F1B46.BE8A6F56@wapme-systems.de><20020131201423.GC616@dothill.com> <3C5BA9D6.75EBA631@wapme-systems.de>
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 09:56:54AM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> Jason Tishler wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> > > The Revision Control System (RCS) manages multiple revisions of files.
> > > RCS automates the storing, retrieval, logging, identification, and
> > > merging of revisions. RCS is useful for text that is revised
> > > frequently, e.g., programs, documentation, graphics, papers, and form
> > > letters.
> > The above RCS package has the dreaded truncation after 1024 bytes bug:
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-07/msg00161.html
> > Please fix ASAP!
> I'm just preparing the rcs-5.7-2 package.
Thanks for the fast turn around time.
Did you verify that rcs-5.7-2 passes the test case mentioned in the
BTW, the private RCS build that I have been using without any problems
is built with the patch attached to the following:
I finally answered the question that I asked in the above URL:
Does anyone know whether or not this patch is really needed with the
The answer is "no." If you use my patch, then the John Wiersba's is not
needed. This is because with my patch the following problematic line
is #ifdef'd out:
if (lseek(wfd, wfd_off, SEEK_CUR) == -1)
It is probably too late, but you may want to consider my patch instead.
Nevertheless, if rcs-5.7-2 is no longer susceptible to truncations, then
I'll be happy.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html