Summary: SCCS vs. RCS

[Greg A. Woods]

In article <2282 at megadon.UUCP> balilly at Broadcast.Sony.COM (Bruce Lilly) writes:
>[....]
> The premise of Rob's ``solution'' is that *all* files have a '.'
> somewhere.  This doesn't work, e.g., for s.Makefile -> Makefile. For that
> to work, a ',' would have to operate as a SUFFIX delimiter, which it does
> not do in ``standard'' make. There's no way to make make make Makefile
> from Makefile,v using ony SUFFIX-based rules. An explicit dependency line
> and rule would be required for each and every file.

[ I *really* like your use of the English language! ;-) ]

You can always use something like the .sh rule by calling your file
"Makefile.sh".  Non-traditional, and potentially confusing, but it
works.

> P.S. Note that make will automatically do a get if there is an s.Makefile
> (or s.makefile) and neither Makefile nor makefile exist.  In short, make and
> SCCS are well integrated.

Unfortunately I find make a little lacking when it comes to either RCS
or SCCS.  Gnumake is slightly better, and perhaps dmake is too, but
they are non-standard, and versions I've tried were either buggy, or
not compatible with SysV make.  SysV make won't find SCCS/s.[Mm]akefile,
for example.

Instead, I prefer to "keep it simple, stupid", and not deal with the
version control through make.  I use RCS or SCCS with "sccs" in a mode
where they are transparent, and make need know nothing about them.
All files are always "checked out" and visible to make.  The very
nature of the way one uses "sccs", for example, ensures this is always
true.
-- 
							Greg A. Woods
woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP		ECI and UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]    VE3TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA
"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible"-ORWELL