From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Jan 18 21:30:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA26385 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:30:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lsd.relcom.eu.net (ache@lsd.relcom.eu.net [193.124.23.23]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA26375; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:30:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ache@lsd.relcom.eu.net) Received: (from ache@localhost) by lsd.relcom.eu.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA16377; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:29:59 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:29:55 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= X-Sender: ache@lsd.relcom.eu.net To: John Polstra cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, asami@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: amanda port, empty PATCH_STRIP= lines causes trouble In-Reply-To: <199801190123.RAA17475@austin.polstra.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, John Polstra wrote: > In article , > =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= wrote: > > > The first reason of "unfixing" was that standard ncurses patches > > set applies cleanly on all systems excepting FreeBSD (which have > > abnormal "fixed" patch). > > Come on, Andrey, the new patch has broken a sizeable portion of the > ports tree just to fix ncurses, which IMHO is broken itself. AGAIN READ THE FIRST LINE OF MY MESSAGE I NOT TALK YET ABOUT -CURRENT NEW PATCH HERE AT ALL! HERE IS THAT LINE FROM MY MESSAGE TOGETHER WITH ONE ABOUT -CURRENT: >> Lets consider -stable you care about. If both CVS diff change and patch .... >> I think situation with -current will be more clear when this issue will >> be resolved first somehow. > When another one comes in, then we'll have two. Currently, we have a > lot more broken ports than that, all as a result of this change. As constructive move I suggest special filter to detect wrongly generated patches by comparing (Index and ---/*** lines) and convert them on the fly or call _special_ version of patch upon them. BUT NOT BROKE PROGRAMS IN CHAIN MODE! > > I especially wonder why you not say something when patch was "fixed" > > first and new CVS imported. > > Sometimes the consequences of a change aren't obvious until it's been > made. This one is bad news. A lot of people are complaining about > it. I wish you'd just back it out until a better solution can be > found. I not complain about sneaked bugs (it is normal) but about UNWILLING TO REMOVE THEM THEN with functionality arguments. See my "filter" proposal above as sa olution. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/