Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:46:47 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Dmitrij Tejblum <dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.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: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980120124212.23890A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> In-Reply-To: <199801200940.MAA02073@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Dmitrij Tejblum wrote: > 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*). "Most" correct variant is even worse that incorrect one. I.e. any correctness probability less then 100% is simple not correct. For patch: Makefile's is usual case, since they are often in every directory. Old patch cause upper level Makefile will be patched instead of one resides lower in the directory tree. If Makefiles are almost equal, this patch can even apply sucessfully, which leads to hardly detected error. -- 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.3.96.980120124212.23890A-100000>