info-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Upgrade from CVS 1.10 / 1.10.7


From: Steven Buroff
Subject: RE: Upgrade from CVS 1.10 / 1.10.7
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:53:58 -0400

I tried using 1.11.2 on Win2K and found it wouldn't work.
The bug has apparently been fixed but a new binary isn't
available yet (as far as I know). I have attached several
emails that describe the problem.

Steve Buroff

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden Behalf
Of
Martin Roehrig
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 5:45 AM
To: CVS-Mailingliste (Info)
Subject: Upgrade from CVS 1.10 / 1.10.7


Hi,

we are still using CVS versions 1.10 and 1.10.7 and would now like to
upgrade.
I took a look into the current ChangeLog and into appendix E of the
current version of the manual and it seemed to me that there
should be no problems.

Nevertheless my questions:
Is version 1.11.2 recommended or would you prefer some other version
(apart from the current CVS repository versions)?
Should we commit all pending changes from the sandboxes and
re-checkout after the upgrade?
Should we take any action before or after the upgrade besides calling
cvs init on each repository?

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Martin



_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: Unknown user error? Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:18:31 -0400
Larry Jones wrote:

>Derek Robert Price writes:
>
>
>>I think the executable available on cvshome.org wasn't compiled with
>>CVS_BADROOT properly undef'd re:
>><http://ccvs.cvshome.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72>.  CVS_BADROOT is
>>undefined correctly in windows-NT/options.h, so I'm guessing that
>>somehow src/options.h got used instead when the executable was
>>compiled.
>>
>>
>
>I suspect this is a side-effect of getting rid of src/options.h.in
and
>the accompanying autoconf magic.
>
>-Larry Jones
>
>Yep, we'd probably be dead by now if it wasn't for Twinkies. --
Calvin
>
>

Hah.  And I thought the generation was pointless since the file was
just
copied.  Anyhow, I'm turning most of the options.h options into
configure script options at the moment.  And removing some others.  I
may change my mind as I consider the implications of blurring the
distinction between system configuration and compile time options, but
it seems to me that configure already does a lot of that and moving
the
options makes sense.

Which reminds me, anyone out there still compiling with RELATIVE_REPOS
undefined?  There's been a comment in the code that this would be
removed for over 3 years.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Derek

--
                *8^)

Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at http://ximbiot.com
--
If that plane leaves the ground and you're not with him, you'll regret
it.
Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of
your life.

                - Humphrey Bogart as Rick, _Casablanca_





_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: Unknown user error? Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:31:18 -0400
Derek Robert Price writes:
>
> I think the executable available on cvshome.org wasn't compiled with
> CVS_BADROOT properly undef'd re:
> <http://ccvs.cvshome.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72>.  CVS_BADROOT is
> undefined correctly in windows-NT/options.h, so I'm guessing that
> somehow src/options.h got used instead when the executable was
> compiled.

I suspect this is a side-effect of getting rid of src/options.h.in and
the accompanying autoconf magic.

-Larry Jones

Yep, we'd probably be dead by now if it wasn't for Twinkies. -- Calvin

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]