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

Re: Logbook - RCS



On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:41:11PM -0800, Gruessle wrote:
> > From: Tom [mailto:31210.nospam@comcast.net]
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:06:52PM -0800, Gruessle wrote:
> > > 
> > > arch comes up as "print machine architecture"
> > > what is the arch you are taking about?
> > 
> > apt-cache show arch says look for larch
> > apt-cache show larch says you should really use tla
> > 
> > so I guess you should read apt-cache show tla
> > 
> 
> I don't get any of that 
> apt-cache show arch says revision control system
> can't find the stuff you been finding.
> But I don't get it if I type arch I get i686, which is my AMD 
> and arch --help says "print machine architecture"

I'm using SID

$ apt-cache show arch; apt-cache show larch; apt-cache show tla
Package: arch
[snip]
Description: transitional package
 This dummy package exists only to smooth upgrades to larch. It may be
 removed once the upgrade has completed.
 
Package: larch
[snip]
Description: revision control system
 arch is a revision control system with features that are ideal for 
projects
 characterised by widely distributed development, concurrent support of
 multiple releases, and substantial amounts of development on branches.
 It can be a replacement for CVS and corrects many mis-features of that 
system.
 .
 larch is the implementation of arch in shell and C, by Tom Lord.
 .
 It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you use tla instead of larch. This
 package is provided for backwards-compatibility purposes, since tla
 is not a drop-in replacement for larch.
 
Package: tla
[snip]
Description: arch revision control system
 arch is a revision control system with features that are ideal for 
projects
 characterised by widely distributed development, concurrent support of
 multiple releases, and substantial amounts of development on branches.
 It can be a replacement for CVS and corrects many mis-features of that 
system.
 .
 tla is an implementation of arch in C, by Tom Lord.



Reply to: