Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Hi Arthur, I have installed 2.5.04 (3055) and I still get the same problem. Is there not something that I could run that would check all the flags for me. Why does it not tell me what flags are offending ? How do you normally fix offending RCS flags? Is it better for me to run 2.5.03 or 2.5.04, now that I'm upgrading ? I think if I cannot resolve this soon I will have to concede to losing all my history and re-adding all my modules so that we are running the latest version of CVS. Then on a virtual machine I will install the old CVS 2.0.51d and if anybody needs older history they can get it from that machine. Not ideal but the gears must turn. Thanks for the help. Regards, Sean B Sean Bertinotti wrote: > Arthur, > > This is the result from the rlog: > > RCS file: /CVSRepo/Linux/EDC/b3kxEDC.~pas,v > head: 1.1 > branch: > locks: strict > access list: > symbolic names: > keyword substitution: kv > total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1 > description: > ---------------------------- > revision 1.1 > date: 2006/08/15 10:41:44; author: seanb; state: Exp; kopt: kv; > commitid > : 15d044e1a4dc0fe0; filename: b3kxEDC.~pas; > Added Linux Source to CVS > ============================================================================= > > > I will attempt to use version 2.5.04 RC and give you feed back shortly. > > Thanks in advance, > Sean > > Arthur Barrett wrote: >> Sean, >> >>> cvs server: invalid RCS expansion flags >> >> If you do a 'cvs rlog' on the file what are the expansion options on the >> revision you are trying to check out? >> >> Can you try using the 2.5.04 RC release? >> >> I vaguely remember something like this - I've found some e-mails from >> our commercial support about it but I can't find the resolution (it's >> going back a couple of years now). I seem to recall needing to do a >> patch - but it was an odd case. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Arthur >> >> >> >>