[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update
From: |
Tobias C. Rittweiler |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:28:43 +0200 |
On Tuesday, August 19, 2003 at 11:03:58 AM,
Jonathan Walther <address@hidden> wrote:
> Now, when I do an explicit tag of a file while using tagline, how do I
> tell arch "this is a binary file, not a text file"? How exactly does
> arch handle binary files differently from text files?
`Introducing Changesets' of the tutorial:
mkpatch can compare binary files (saving complete copies of the
old and new versions if they differ) and symbolic links (saving
the old and new link targets, if they differ).
> Also, the rstart program has some files named @List and @Aliases. Do
> these names conflict with anything crucial in the Arch naming scheme?
After a quick glance at ``The arch Naming Conventions'' I'd say they'd
be consindered unrecognized.
> How do I tell arch that they are legitimate source text files?
``How to Customize Naming Conventions'' tells me that you want to add a
line like
source ^(address@hidden|\.arch-ids|\{arch\}|\.arch-project-tree)$
to {arch}/=tagging-method.
> Manpages are text pages; does anyone know the roff language well enough
> to tell me how to put an arch tagline in a manpage?
groff.7 reveals:
SINGLE CHARACTER ESCAPES
\" Beginning of a comment. Everything up to the end
of the line is ignored.
> Jonathan
C'm on Jonathan. :-)
(Well, I can anticipate that you're quite busy these days, so nevermind)
-- tcr (address@hidden) ``Ho chresim'eidos uch ho poll'eidos sophos''
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Anderson, 2003/08/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Collins, 2003/08/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/21
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Bader, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Ganesh Sittampalam, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Collins, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/22
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update,
Tobias C. Rittweiler <=
Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Ganesh Sittampalam, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Tom Lord, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Egan, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Tom Lord, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Egan, 2003/08/23