[comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d] Working Version of RCS?

peregrin@hulaw1.harvard.edu (03/05/91)

	Does anyone have a working version of Purdue's RCS under DOS?  
I've tried the version on SIMTEL and it is so shaky as to be unusable.

	I've spent a couple of days porting the source from comp.binaries which
is in MS C 5.0 to Turbo C 2.0.  It works, (except rlog) but I don't trust it 
yet.

	I'd rather not buy a commercial version control system, since I have
simple needs (only me programming, no network).

James

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ James Peregrino                        |     JPEREGRINO@HBSSTG.HARVARD.EDU +
+ Programmer/Analyst                     |         PEREGRIN@STIG.HARVARD.EDU +
+ Science & Technology Interest Group    |    JPEREGRINO@HBS.HBS.HARVARD.EDU + 
+ Harvard Business School                |       PEREGRIN@HULAW1.BITNET      +
+ Boston, MA 02163                       +-----------------------------------+
+ Voice: (617)495-6307                   | My opinions are only my own and   +
+ FAX:   (617)495-0351                   | never H.B.S's.                    +
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 

NU013809@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Greg Wettstein) (03/06/91)

>         Does anyone have a working version of Purdue's RCS under DOS?
> I've tried the version on SIMTEL and it is so shaky as to be unusable.
>
>         I've spent a couple of days porting the source from comp.binaries whic
> is in MS C 5.0 to Turbo C 2.0.  It works, (except rlog) but I don't trust it
> yet.
>
>         I'd rather not buy a commercial version control system, since I have
> simple needs (only me programming, no network).
>
> James

I was recently faced with the same troubling thoughts about the various
versions of RCS floating around the PC world.  One hesitates before committing
sources of importance to a source code control system of questionable
reliability...

To avoid any concerns on my part I picked up the 5.5 sources from
prep.ai.mit.edu and ported them to MS-DOS under MSC 5.5.  I use ms_shell
exclusively as my command interpreter and with the 5.5 sources comes a very
nice Bourne Shell script which tests RCS fairly thoroughly.  I currently
have the port in a condition in which it passes the rcstest script completely.
My intention (if there is interest) is to pack up the binaries and ship
them to our eminent moderator for distribution.

The only thing that has delayed me from shipping them is that I am writing
a C version of the merge script which is called by the rcsmerge program to
call diff3 and run the three-way file comparison through ed to produce the
final merged output.  Since not everyone uses (or wants to use) a version
of sh under MS-DOS I thought that this would be needed to make the package
fully usable under most flavors/environments of MS-DOS.

As soon as the C version of the merge script passes rcstest I will ship
the binaries to Mr. Davidsen.  The package is currently set up to use the
MS-DOS version of GNU DIFF as available from ocf.berkeley.edu as part of
the GNU-ish MS-DOS project.  The rcsmerge program also requires the
availability of an MS-DOS versio of ed.  I found a version of ed whose
original source came from the MINIX project and appears to be freely
distributable.  I will enclose a copy of ed in the binaries package so
that users will have access to pretty much everything they need to get
started with version control under MS-DOS.  I assume that everyone has
a copy of GNU DIFF 1.14 or has the ability to get at it.  If this
assumption is incorrect please advise me and I could package up diff and
diff3 as well.  As to rcsfreeze and rcsclean which are implemented in
Bournce script I will include these but leave it up to the final user to
reimplement them or to get a copy of ms_shell or something similar.

If anybody has any questions or comments please feel free to drop me a
note.  Please use the e-mail address in my .sig as that will route mail
to me much faster than a reply to this account.

                            As always,
                            Dr. G.W. Wettstein
                            Oncology Research Division Computing Facility
                            Fargo Clinic / MeritCare

                            UUCP: uunet!plains!wind!greg
                            INTERNET: greg%wind.uucp@plains.nodak.edu
                            Phone: 701-234-2833

`The truest mark of a man's wisdom is his ability to listen to other
 men expound their wisdom.'

robl@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Luursema) (03/09/91)

In article <91065.084335NU013809@NDSUVM1.BITNET> 
  greg%wind.uucp@plains.nodak.edu (Greg Wettstein) writes:
><...> I picked up the 5.5 sources from
>prep.ai.mit.edu and ported them to MS-DOS under MSC 5.5.  <...> I currently
>have the port in a condition in which it passes the rcstest script completely.
>My intention (if there is interest) is to pack up the binaries and ship
>them to our eminent moderator for distribution.
I think thats a very good idea!

I picked up RCS from c.b.i.p last year (Posted 17 Aug 90, V07i145), but
I failed to get it working properly.  And it couldn't be fixed without 
recompiling with the right set of flags. So I put this pakage aside.

>I will enclose a copy of ed in the binaries package so
>that users will have access to pretty much everything they need to get
>started with version control under MS-DOS.  I assume that everyone has
>a copy of GNU DIFF 1.14 or has the ability to get at it.  If this
>assumption is incorrect please advise me and I could package up diff and
>diff3 as well.  

Please Mr. Wettstein, make the package as complete as possible, with the 
right set of tools. Make it independent of tools someone may have laying 
around but are of version 1.1 while RCS requires version 2.0 for example. 
So include the tools required and not obvious a dos-user would have, and
provided they are free/share-ware.  DIFF(3) and SH are not obvious since 
there are dozens versions of it.  ED is also not obvious, while EDLIN is.
I have MKS toolkit which contain the necessary tools, but I am not sure 
if it all works flawless. II'd rather stick to something thoroughly tested.

--
     _ _ 
    / U |         Rob Luursema, Philips Information Systems Apeldoorn 
   /__ <                         robl@idca.tds.philips.nl
  88  |_\     "The trouble with everyone is that they generalize too much"