[cvsnt] CVSNT Diff fails

[David Smith]

I have tried both cvs with CVS Suite 2.5.02.2091 and cvs from CVSNT 
2.5.0.3.2151 and get the same error. This is running on Windows XP SP2 and 
client and server are on the same machine.

When I use the command:

C:/Program Files/CVSNT/cvs.exe -z9 -d :sspi:user:password at host:/Test 
diff -k+L base_2280.ai_tblidx

I get the following error:

Index: base_2280.ai_tblidx
===================================================================
RCS file: /Test/2280/base_2280.ai_tblidx,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -r1.1 base_2280.ai_tblidx
1c1
< [TableIndex 1.4]
---
> [TableIndex 1.4]

When I look at the file contents using a od -c on the workspace file it does 
not have any extra characters and contains:

0000000000     [   T   a   b   l   e   I   n   d   e   x       1   .   4   ]
0000000020    \n
0000000021

The corresping base_2280.ai_tblidx,v contains:

0000000000     h   e   a   d  \t   1   .   1   ;  \n   a   c   c   e   s   s
0000000020     ;  \n   s   y   m   b   o   l   s   ;  \n   l   o   c   k   s
0000000040     ;       s   t   r   i   c   t   ;  \n   c   o   m   m   e   n
0000000060     t  \t   @   #       @   ;  \n  \n  \n   1   .   1  \n   d   a
0000000100     t   e  \t   2   0   0   5   .   1   0   .   2   5   .   2   1
0000000120     .   4   9   .   2   2   ;  \t   a   u   t   h   o   r       l
0000000140     y   u   a   n   ;  \t   s   t   a   t   e       E   x   p   ;
0000000160    \n   b   r   a   n   c   h   e   s   ;  \n   n   e   x   t  \t
0000000200     ;  \n  \n  \n   d   e   s   c  \n   @   @  \n  \n  \n   1   .
0000000220     1  \n   l   o   g  \n   @   i   n   i   t   i   a   l       v
0000000240     e   r   s   i   o   n   .  \n   @  \n   t   e   x   t  \n   @
0000000260     [   T   a   b   l   e   I   n   d   e   x       1   .   4   ]
0000000300    \n   @  \n
0000000303

I have tried this sspi, pserver, and sserver and all fail the same way. I 
have also tried it both with and without -z9. And without the -k+L. Using 
:local: it works fine.

So, it appears to be a bug in server handling.

Has anyone seen this and can suggest a solution?

Regards
David