bash-3.0-14 source package: patches apply, but not cleanly

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bash-3.0-14 source package: patches apply, but not cleanly

Igor Peshansky
Just a heads-up: when running "./bash-3.0-14.sh prep" from the 3.0-14
source package, the log contains a bunch of messages like this:

APPLYING OFFICIAL PATCH bash30-001
missing header for context diff at line 28 of patch
patching file arrayfunc.c
missing header for context diff at line 44 of patch
[snip]
APPLYING OFFICIAL PATCH bash30-002
patching file lib/readline/display.c
Not setting time of file lib/readline/display.c (time mismatch)
missing header for context diff at line 54 of patch
patching file patchlevel.h

etc...
None of the hunks actually fail to apply, AFAICS, but the above may still
be worth investigating.
        Igor
--
                                http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_    [hidden email] | [hidden email]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bash-3.0-14 source package: patches apply, but not cleanly

Eric Blake-2
> Just a heads-up: when running "./bash-3.0-14.sh prep" from the 3.0-14
> source package, the log contains a bunch of messages like this:
>
> APPLYING OFFICIAL PATCH bash30-001
> missing header for context diff at line 28 of patch

I couldn't figure out what that meant, or why it was appearing; but
I saw it too when creating the package.  Since the patches applied
correctly in spite of the message, I ignored it.

> patching file arrayfunc.c
> missing header for context diff at line 44 of patch
> [snip]
> APPLYING OFFICIAL PATCH bash30-002
> patching file lib/readline/display.c
> Not setting time of file lib/readline/display.c (time mismatch)

I do know what that one means - the g-b-s uses patch -Z to
preserve timestamps, where a file will have the timestamp
listed in the diff rather than when it was patched; but it breaks
down if the file was patched on the side, so that the starting
timestamp no longer matches.  Again, it should be harmless.

>
> etc...
> None of the hunks actually fail to apply, AFAICS, but the above may still
> be worth investigating.

If anyone else has ideas on how to silence messages like
this, short of a g-b-s patch to run patch in quiet mode, I'm
all ears.

> ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
>      |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski

I thought so - hopefully more people can pronouce it now.

--
Eric Blake
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bash-3.0-14 source package: patches apply, but not cleanly

Igor Peshansky
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, Eric Blake wrote:

> > Just a heads-up: when running "./bash-3.0-14.sh prep" from the 3.0-14
> > source package, the log contains a bunch of messages like this:
> >
> > APPLYING OFFICIAL PATCH bash30-001
> > missing header for context diff at line 28 of patch
>
> I couldn't figure out what that meant, or why it was appearing; but
> I saw it too when creating the package.  Since the patches applied
> correctly in spite of the message, I ignored it.

Heh.  According to the patch sources, this happens when patch cannot parse
the old and new names of the file.  Those, however, look fine to me.  I
guess if this bugs me enough I'll trace patch under gdb to see why it
punts.

> > patching file arrayfunc.c
> > missing header for context diff at line 44 of patch
> > [snip]
> > APPLYING OFFICIAL PATCH bash30-002
> > patching file lib/readline/display.c
> > Not setting time of file lib/readline/display.c (time mismatch)
>
> I do know what that one means - the g-b-s uses patch -Z to
> preserve timestamps, where a file will have the timestamp
> listed in the diff rather than when it was patched; but it breaks
> down if the file was patched on the side, so that the starting
> timestamp no longer matches.  Again, it should be harmless.

Right.  It should be enough to just mention their harmlessness in the
README.  FWIW, that was the first place I looked, and when I didn't find
any mention of these errors, I thought I'd report it.

> > etc...
> > None of the hunks actually fail to apply, AFAICS, but the above may
> > still be worth investigating.
>
> If anyone else has ideas on how to silence messages like this, short of
> a g-b-s patch to run patch in quiet mode, I'm all ears.

If I get anywhere with that patch debug session, I'll let you know. :-)

> > ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
> >      |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
>
> I thought so - hopefully more people can pronouce it now.

Yeah, long overdue, that was... :-D
        Igor
--
                                http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_    [hidden email] | [hidden email]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"