From owner-freebsd-standards Fri Apr 26 13:19:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from green.bikeshed.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E9737B419; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by green.bikeshed.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3QKJSs87524; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:19:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green@green.bikeshed.org) Message-Id: <200204262019.g3QKJSs87524@green.bikeshed.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: drosih@rpi.edu, areilly@bigpond.net.au, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: diff & patch problem with 'No newline' In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:59:55 MDT." <20020426.095955.80136029.imp@village.org> From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:19:28 -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "M. Warner Losh" wrote: > In message: > Garance A Drosihn writes: > : At 9:07 PM +1000 4/26/02, Andrew Reilly wrote: > : >On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 14:12, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > : >> So, that's my pitch. I feel fairly strongly that there is a > : >> real advantage in following the lead of Linux (+anyone using > : > > gnu-diff) and NetBSD in this matter. > : > > : >I know that you didn't ask for it, but I'd like to voice a > : >strong vote of "yea" for (at least) teaching our patch to > : >handle the "\no new line" in diffs. > : > : I'm willing to ask for any votes of "yea". It's the votes > : of "nay" that I'm not asking for... :-) :-) > > My plans had always been to back out Green's change (with Green's > permission, btw) when there was a patch that could grok things. The > back out wouldn't be MFC'd until after at least one release. Since > this was historical FreeBSD behavior, and modern patches grok the end > of line things, I see this as a no brainer: just do it once patch is > patched :-) So, as a solution for unbreaking old machines which won't understand what to do with those patch files (as largely demonstrated by the ports, of course), should there be a port for a "new" version of patch which the ports system can depend upon and use instead of the base system's patch? I can see this mattering because people are very comfortable running releases from several years ago. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org <> bfeldman@tislabs.com \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-standards" in the body of the message