bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

backwards compatibility problem with .cvspass?


From: Karl Fogel
Subject: backwards compatibility problem with .cvspass?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:48:14 -0600

I haven't debugged this at all, because there's probably a simple
answer that someone already knows.  Right? :-)

I just built the latest trunk cvs, but haven't installed it.  But now
these two commands in my working tree get different results:

   prompt$ /usr/local/bin/cvs up             /* using the old cvs */
   [normal update output, everything fine]

   prompt$ src/cvs up                        /* using the new cvs */
   cvs update: authorization failed: server cvs.cyclic.com \
   rejected access to /home2/cvsroot for user kfogel
   cvs update: used empty password; try "cvs login" with a real password

Hmm.  That's bad.  The NEWS file has these two items:

   * The ~/.cvspass file has a slightly modified format.  Now two
   slightly different CVSROOTs which represent the same repository and
   user name no longer require separate calls to 'cvs login' to use.
   The new code should be backwards compatible with the old file
   format unless you have an old password entry for a host name
   containing capital letters.  In this case the new version of CVS
   will be unable to log out.  The workaround for this is to log out
   using an old version of CVS or delete the appropriate line from
   ~/.cvspass, then log in with the new version.

   * A password and a port number may now be specified in CVSROOT for
   pserver connections.  The new format is:

      :pserver:[[user][:address@hidden:[port]]/path

   Note that passwords specified in a checkout command will be saved
   in the clear in the CVS/Root file in each created directory, so
   this is not recommended, except perhaps when accessing anonymous
   repositories or the like.

But the result doesn't look backwards-compatible to me so far. :-) 

Am I missing something silly here?  Or (worst case) does the current
code break people's existing working-copy & .cvspass combinations?

-K



reply via email to

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