patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

[Eitan Adler]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk at mit.edu> wrote:
> I guess I'm late to the party (catching up on the whole thread took a
> while...)
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Eitan Adler wrote:
>
>> patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases.  Are
>> we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending
>> on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code be removed
>> from patch(1)?
>>
>> See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c lines 166 to 240 for details.
>
>
> It seems like maybe this question should have been answered before rcs was
> removed, instead of after?
> (I don't know whether I would have expected you to be able to find every use
> of rcs, everywhere, prior to removing it, but this is what public
> declaration of intent/discussions help with.)

I was asked by members of core@ to expedite the removal to 10.X - it
was not done just because I felt like it.

In any case its been reverted now so the discussion is moot.

-- 
Eitan Adler