Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:36:27 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: sbruno@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bsd patch regression? Message-ID: <521D460B.3040705@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1377644312.6359.27.camel@localhost> References: <1377644312.6359.27.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Sean; El 27/08/2013 5:58 p. m., Sean Bruno escribió: > Colin generated a patch for xen things that does some pretty typical > behavior. bsdpatch really didn't handle it well and rejected some > things and flat out refused to create sys/modules/xenhvm/Makefile for > me. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2013-August/001697.html > > When applying this patch with gnupatch I get: > http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/gnupatch.txt > > > When applying this patch with bsdpatch I get: > http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/bsdpatch.txt > I note that you are using GNU patch from the ports tree. It would appear that both utilities reject the patches for: sys/amd64/conf/XENHVM sys/i386/conf/XENHVM bsdpatch is uglily more verbose and handles the rejected patches much less gracefully but it seems like gpatch also has issues with the same patches. I am not sure we can call this a regression: please note that bsd patch is meant to replace the ancient GNU patch that we had in the tree (it's still there under the name "gnupatch"). We ran an exp-run on ports and there was only a small regression related to the patch level which is a little stricter in BSD patch. > > Any ideas here? > Not very helpful but I suggest using "svn patch" when possible. :( Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?521D460B.3040705>