Re: [Bug-cssc] bug-CSSC post from address@hidden requires approval

[Joerg Schilling]

James Youngman <address@hidden> wrote:

> > sccs (aprox. 10 years) and it seems that it is too long that I read the
> > related man page. The 'x' flag as used by SCO however seems to be useless
> > as SCCS has a better way to deal with the execitable bit on files: Just
> > chmod +x SCCS/s.somefile
> > This is more intuitive.
> >
> > It seems however that I should ignore the 'x' flag in case that it has not 
> > been
> > added together with the "SCHILY" argument.
>
> Or you could support the SCO semantics if the flag value is "1" rather
> than "SCHILY".   Up to you.

It may be a better solution to write a warning hint to chmod +x


> However, there's still an incompatibility.  The problem is, what an
> implementation should do in response to:
>
> admin -fx /somepath/s.foo
>
> Clearly there are two options:
>
> 1. Set the x flag to 1: be compatible with SCO SCCS
> 2. Set the x flag to SCHILY: be compatible with Schily SCCS v 1.1 and
> later (I think that's the right version)

The current development version adds "^Af x SCHILY"

> I can't see a way for the admin program to determine which behaviour
> the user wants.   Apart of course from introducing an incompatible
> configure-time selection or relying on some environment variable.   I
> don't think using stat on the g-file is likely to be reliable enough,
> especially since there may be no gfile.

Well, the SCO version could be seen as nearly dead I am not sure whether there 
will be future development in this path.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:address@hidden (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       address@hidden                (uni)  
       address@hidden (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily