Re: `cvs' version problem? (was Re: CVS compilation problems...)

[Raja R Harinath <harinath cs umn edu>]

John R Sheets <dusk@smsi-roman.com> writes:
> Raja R Harinath wrote:
> > Anything that puts one or more of macros/, intl/, or libvfs/ at the same
> > level as gnome-libs is wrong.
> >
> > Other variants for testing should be obvious from this.  A smaller
> > module (like gedit, ee, or gnome-print) may be more preferable for
> > testing.
> 
> I'm running cvs 1.9 from rpm, and I've noticed that it seems to act a little
> inconsistent about which level it tries to put macros/ etc in, depending on
> which module I'm checking out, even with a fresh checkout.  If I recall
> properly, cvs put macros/ in the right place for ee, but not for gnome-libs,
> gnome-network, and maybe a couple other packages.

Yuck:-(
 
> I don't know if this has anything at all to do with it, but it did seem that
> generally, the modules that worked properly had a CVS/Entries.Log file, while
> the ones that cvs messed up on didn't have that file.  Maybe I'm totally off
> base here.  I haven't had the opportunity to test this further.
> 
> What is the Entries.Log file used for, anyway?  I couldn't find it in the CVS
> docs.

`Entries.Log' is used for temporary stuff, and is automatically merged
into Entries at the end of the CVS command.  If you see the Entries.Log
file, it may mean that CVS aborted in the middle or something.  I don't
think it is relevant here.  It probably was left around when you hit
Ctrl-C in the middle of a CVS command execution.

- Hari
-- 
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu
"When all else fails, read the instructions."      -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing."   -- Roy L Ash