Re: patch for upgrade48.html (rm /usr/bin/opencvs...)

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:23:33PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
> On 12/17/10 09:19, Nicolas P. M. Legrand wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > since OpenCVS wasn't link to 4.8 build, maybe it's better to rm the
> > 4.7 binary and doc ?
> 
> There have certainly been other binaries that have been detached from
> builds that have not been rm'd in the upgrade process (i.e., window(1)).
> 
> Unlike window(1), I think we hope that opencvs will return.
> 
> The primary reason why a binary is rm'd as part of an upgrade is when it
> changes location (i.e., from /usr/bin to /bin) or moved to a port
> (groff and friends, f77, etc.) where its continued existence is likely
> to cause problems.  Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't apply to
> opencvs, right?
> 
> On the other hand, if someone were USING opencvs for something, this
> would actively break it.  So...small risk, no(?) benefit, so I'm not in
> favor of this, though a convincing argument could change my mind.

I have none :), thanks for the answer.