Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:59:19 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: peter@netplex.com.au, perhaps@yes.no, gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: amanda port, empty PATCH_STRIP= lines causes trouble Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980119014033.14512A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> In-Reply-To: <199801182237.OAA07740@baloon.mimi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Satoshi Asami wrote: > Sorry, I did read that part but didn't understand what you meant. If > that is the case, that change should be backed out too, at least until > there is a release with a new cvs comes out. Or we are going to have > a hard time working with user-submitted diffs (you know how the ports > team get most of the stuff?). Lets consider -stable you care about. If both CVS diff change and patch "unfix" will be backed out, FreeBSD patch will be unable to handle properly non-FreeBSD generated patches. The first reason of "unfixing" was that standard ncurses patches set applies cleanly on all systems excepting FreeBSD (which have abnormal "fixed" patch). Ncurses patches set is only bug trigger and it seems better not wait until another one comes in. The FreeBSD patch bug (as result of "fixing" it instead of CVS) is sometimes stealthy and hardly detected which can cause serious undetected damage for anyone who apply some non-FreeBSD generated patch. Of course, I already write that some time ago... I especially wonder why you not say something when patch was "fixed" first and new CVS imported. It was the very first move which cause _incompatibility_ with old patch & CVS. You handle this incompatibility somehow without asking for back out. Now, when I _revert_ the stuff to old way as it was before (I do not add something new, just remove wrong "fix" for patch), you ask for backing out. It looks very strange at leas. Yet once, rephrase: 1) The patch was "fixed" which cause a) incompatibility with oldest FreeBSD patch and b) cause incompatibility with world-wide patches. You not say anything and handle this somehow. 2) I remove wrong "fix", restoring compatibility with oldest FreeBSD patch and world-wide patches. You ask for back out argumenting with incompatibility. Something is really fishing here! I think situation with -current will be more clear when this issue will be resolved first somehow. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nietzsche.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980119014033.14512A-100000>