<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Ben Franksen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ben.franksen@online.de">ben.franksen@online.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">Jason Dagit wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Ben Franksen<br>
> <<a href="mailto:ben.franksen@online.de">ben.franksen@online.de</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> One minor but important note: the hashed format is *not* readable with a<br>
>> darcs-1 program:<br>
><br>
> Sorry about that. The support for hashed repos existed long before 2.0<br>
> was released and so I misremembered the hashed support as appearing in a<br>
> 1.x release.<br>
><br>
> It looks like you need at least 2.0 to read darcs 1 hashed repos.<br>
><br>
> Upgrading to a modern darcs client is advised and is only a 'cabal install<br>
> darcs' away. I was under the impression that even debian stable has moved<br>
> on to 2.x releases. How is it that you have a 1.0.9 release candidate<br>
> client still?<br>
<br>
</div></div>Have you ever worked at a public institution? I recommend the<br>
experience... ;-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Heh. I once was a junior sysadmin at a university. Yes, sometimes the software people used was old.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Seriously, the server is a debian etch (!) system. Also called "debian<br>
old-stable". Of course I have long since installed newer version of darcs,<br>
but since I am not root there I cannot put it into /usr/local, so I cannot<br>
completely rule out the possibility that other users still use the<br>
ancient /usr/bin/darcs and will now have problems when they darcs get.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Isn't debian etch a security liability at this point?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
I do _not_ expect that this will lead to any serious trouble, as the latest<br>
stable darcs is just a small addition to the PATH away. Still, users should<br>
be warned that darcs-2.x is required.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, sorry about that. At the time I was having some trouble finding authoritative info on it so I went with my memory, which was wrong.</div><div>
<br></div><div>As for your path, I'm reasonably confident that if you put your local darcs at the front of your path then you're good to go. I know that works for local push, what I'm wondering about is push over ssh. It seems easy for you to test in this case. I know darcs finds the right executable by looking in PATH for 'darcs'. What I can't know is whether the server you're using lets you set PATH over ssh invocations that are non-interactive. It's entirely possible that has been disallowed by the sysadmins.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And again, darcs-2.x is installed on the <a href="http://haskell.org">haskell.org</a> machine in question.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div><br></div></div>