Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!altos!megadon!clp
From: balilly@Broadcast.Sony.COM (Bruce Lilly)
Newsgroups: comp.unix
Subject: Re: Summary: SCCS vs. RCS
Keywords: SCCS RCS source code control
Message-ID: <2282@megadon.UUCP>
Date: 27 Nov 90 23:50:47 GMT
References: <2255@megadon.UUCP> <2260@megadon.UUCP> <2266@megadon.UUCP>
Sender: clp@megadon.UUCP
Organization: Bruce Lilly, Flushing, NY
Lines: 26
Approved: clp@megadon.UUCP
Apparently-To: comp-unix@uunet.uu.net

>>On the other hand, if one uses a ``standard'' make, there is no support for a
>>',' as a delimiter for suffixes, so it's rather difficult to automate use of
>>RCS.
>
>Uh ?  You don't need it.  Most of what you need can be done with rules like
>
>.SUFFIXES:	.c,v
>
>.c,v.c:
>	$(CO) -q $*.c
>[ ... ]
>... etc.  Note that for SCCS it *has* to be built into make, because it uses
>prefixes instead of suffixes.

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.

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.
--
	Bruce Lilly		blilly!balilly!bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM