Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/11/04/07:26:02
At 11:00 AM 11/4/98 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Mike Hackbart wrote:
>
>> c:\devel\rcstest\rcs>copy main~1.c_v i:\censoft\xxrcs
>
>Why did you use the short 8+3 alias instead of the long name main.c,v?
>The COPY command (and all other commands) built into Windows 95
>version of COMMAND.COM support long file names, so why didn't you use
>them? (You might need to quote the long file name because of the
>comma, but otherwise they should work.)
I was trying all possible variations that I could think of. This just
happened to be the example that i sent to you. It doesn't make any
difference since I could never get it to work.
>
>> c:\devel\rcstest was then changed to delete the rcs folder and add a file
>> named rcs that contained:
>>
>> i:\censoft\xxrcs
>
>I see you tried to use the RCS pseudo-link feature. I have never
>tried to use that, and I don't know whether it works correctly on
>Windows 9X (or at all). Maybe that is the source of your problem.
>
>What happens if you chdir to the I: drive and try to extract the file
>there? Does it work? If it does, then the problem most probably is
>caused by the pseudo-link feature.
>
I tried this with no luck (exactly the same results as before):
I:\CENSOFT\xxrcs\lc>co -l bbram.c
RCS/bbram.c,v --> bbram.c
revision 1.1 (locked)
co: RCS/bbram.c,v: No such file or directory (ENOENT)
co: saved in RCS/,bbram.c,
I:\CENSOFT\xxrcs>cd rcs
I:\CENSOFT\xxrcs\RCS>dir
Volume in drive I is SYS3
Directory of I:\CENSOFT\xxrcs\RCS
. <DIR> .
.. <DIR> ..
BBRAM CV 6,219 11-04-98 7:19a bbram.c,v
BBRAM C 6,229 11-04-98 7:12a ,bbram.c,
2 file(s) 12,448 bytes
2 dir(s) 1,001,652,224 bytes free
I:\CENSOFT\xxrcs\RCS>
>> Directory of I:\CENSOFT\xxrcs
>>
>> . <DIR> .
>> .. <DIR> ..
>> MAIN CV 34,814 11-03-98 10:33a main.c,v
>
>Note that the short alias is different in this case: it is not
>main~1.c_v, but something else. I don't know what is the significance
>of this fact.
Interesting, though. Must be the Novell server?
>
>> synchronization between the server time and the local PC time. Could this
>> be the source of the problem?
>
>I don't think RCS cares about the time stamps.
>
OK
Thanks again for your replies,
Mike
- Raw text -