Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:40:05 +0300 From: Dmitrij Tejblum <dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru> To: Андрей Чернов <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Dmitrij Tejblum <tejblum@arc.hq.cti.ru>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: amanda port, empty PATCH_STRIP= lines causes trouble Message-ID: <199801200940.MAA02073@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:03:17 %2B0300." <Pine.BSF.3.96.980120075653.22622A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Андрей Чернов wrote: > > My answer about equal treating was answer on particual question of > Index: precedance handling with right result assumed (i.e. patching right > file in case we have directory tree). It is wrong result that is > different, but right result is one; since people interested in right > result I talk about this clause strictly. I cannot parse it, sorry. Wrong result is different? No, old, not hacked, GNU patch could *correctly* apply CVS diff to directory tree in most cases, for example if all files in the tree have different names (it is not the only case, of course). > For all possible nits see > patch(1) and patch source, but it is outside this discussion subject. I never sayed that old behavior was better. It, apparently, was very unclear, and this is why maintainers of GNU patch changed it. But it is, indeed, outside of scope of this subject. The fact (slightly oversimplified) is that old (not hacked) patch could correctly apply *most* (old) CVS diffs, while new patch cannot. (FreeBSD-hacked patch could apply *all* CVS diffs, but not hacked could apply *most*). Dima
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801200940.MAA02073>