Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:17:57 +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: <199801201017.NAA02614@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:46:47 %2B0300." <Pine.BSF.3.96.980120124212.23890A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Андрей Чернов wrote: > 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. Agreed. But above is answer to your question about how "incorrect" diffs can be "distribution" patches. > I.e. any correctness probability less then 100% is simple not correct. But it is not called "old and new patch handle Index: line equally". Most is still most, and people definitely can notice the difference. Dima
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801201017.NAA02614>