Re: CVS hatred

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2004/09/03]

From: Peter Pentchev
Subject: Re: CVS hatred
Date: 10:16 on 03 Sep 2004
--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:05:18AM -0700, Ann Barcomb wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>=20
> > Well, if you are not using any CVS keywords, then why don't you just
> > say so?  CVS has keyword expansion flags for that, especially -ko,
> > although -kb might also be desirable in some cases.  Of course, this
> > will not help when you check out or update your work on the production
> > servers, but at least on your development machines ko-marked scripts
> > will not be touched.
>=20
> Hmm, probably because I didn't know of that flag.  I have used -kb on
> occassion, but not in order to prevent permission changes.
>=20
> However, I think it is probably not worth setting these flags because
> I still won't have the changes on other checkouts.  It would be better
> to write a script which sets permissions correctly and is run at
> regular intervals.
>=20
> All in all, a tarball is sounding like a better way of updating a live
> server.

IMHO, the best way would be to write a couple of Makefile's, checkout in
a separate location, and then 'make install DESTDIR=3D/whatever' (or
DESTDIR could even be defined with a '?=3D' in the Makefile itself).  Then
the Makefile's would use install(1) with appropriate -o, -g and -m
flags, and everything will be just fine.
=09
> But the real point, as I see it, is that it is not logical that
> checking in a file which may contain a CVS keyword changes the
> permissions on the file.  I can understand how it happens (probably
> because of an rm and a new file instead of a modification of the old
> file), but if I wasn't able to imagine an implementation which could
> cause that side effect, how would I ever be able to guess that the
> way to avoid it would be to eliminate the opportunity for CVS to
> use keywords?  You will note that I didn't guess it, even with
> the implementation possibility in my mind.
>=20
> There is simply no logical relationship between the task of saving
> a file and automatically changing the permissions of the file.

True.  I wonder if it would be hard to add a stat()/chmod() to CVS; I'll
look into that sometime soon (been looking through the CVS sources
recently for unrelated reasons).

G'luck,
Peter

--=20
Peter Pentchev	roam@xxxxxxx.xxx    roam@xxxxx.xx    roam@xxxxxxx.xxx
PGP key:	http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
I am not the subject of this sentence.

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBODZ97Ri2jRYZRVMRAvC5AJ0botwdfHAVKvd2SKWEj2IoQZaG9wCgtKBv
YQRFkVrorxKQU8wMvb8gz0w=
=xycc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--
There's stuff above here

Generated at 02:00 on 04 Sep 2004 by mariachi 0.52