From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Jan 20 04:35:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02046 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 04:35:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from baloon.mimi.com (sjx-ca126-30.ix.netcom.com [207.92.177.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA02040; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 04:35:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: (from asami@localhost) by baloon.mimi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA18344; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 04:35:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 04:35:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801201235.EAA18344@baloon.mimi.com> To: ache@nagual.pp.ru CC: peter@netplex.com.au, perhaps@yes.no, gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, committers@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: (message from =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= on Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:20:10 +0300 (MSK)) Subject: Re: amanda port, empty PATCH_STRIP= lines causes trouble From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Is people intended to misintepretate what I write? Andrey, don't take it personally. This is a volunteer project, we're all in it for fun. I have no intention to make your life harder. But the venom in your mails is making it awfully hard for me to continue. * ncurses generates ABSOLOTELY 100% RIGHT Index: lines, "fixed" FreeBSD * patch interpretate them bogusly. With old patch nobody can trust I am not sure what you are saying here. (I'm sorry, but you have proved elsewhere that you define terms like "right" and "correct" the way you intend to use them, so I'm not sure if you are talking in reference to the new patch man page or something else.) (1) ncurses patch specifies the file's relative pathname in the Index: line but "old" (2.2.5R) patch interprets them bogusly (whatever that means) and tries to patch the wrong file (2) ncurses patch has correct relative pathnames in ***/--- lines and Index: lines that is not the relative pathname of the file in question, so "old" patch tries to patch the file specified in "Index:" and fails * You already let compatibility be broken but left this "fix" sneak in * the patch. Then patch becomes _incompatible_ with old FreeBSD patches * (and other world), but nobody cares! Hey, I said I just didn't notice. (Did you?) * Instead of broke programs in chain mode we must return to the start * and think probably about some filter which detects wrong CVS diffs * from 2.2.5R. This filter is easy - just compare Index: line and * ---/*** lines, and if Index: line is longer, replace ---/**** lines * on the fly or call _special_ version of patch (not default one!) * to handle them. Can you make a filter like that work reliably? And are we going to call it "patch"? * I start to fear where FreeBSD project goes. The thigs like 1) easily * sneaking hacks (causing essential bug) together with 2) unwiling to remove * them argumenting with functionality reasons are clear signs of * degradation. I ever not mention that nobody seems to read even the first * line of my message. I'm starting to fear too. I really don't like the current atmosphere in which it seems people who yell louder always get their way because others just get too annoyed to argue. :< Satoshi