Re: Where is patch? - problems with patch.exe on w32

[Lennart Borgman]

I had some trouble with patch.exe on w32 from both Cygwin and GnuWin32 
that I have asked about in a recent message here. The message below is 
from my conversation on address@hidden about this. Corinna is one of 
the maintainers.

The trouble I had turned out to be one with line endings. For some 
reason patch does not behave as Emacs on w32 when it comes to line 
endings. A line and should just be a line end in my opinion. The patched 
text file should retain its original line format. If this is possible 
then that would really give me and other using w32 a fair chance of 
doing useful work. So I hope to get in contact with the patch maintainer 
about this.

If it is not possible then I think Emacs on w32 should try to take care 
of this. I guess this is possible, but I am not sure. It should simply 
mean that Emacs should notice the line endings and then convert the 
patch file to the same as those of the file to patch before doing the 
patch. (But that is what I would like patch.exe to do instead.) Would 
this be possible? I am speaking mostly about CR-LF about LF here. CR 
could of course be another possibility, maybe other too. Suggestions?


----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennart Borgman wrote:

> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14 19:30, Lennart Borgman wrote:
> >  
> >
> > > I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32 
> > > patch) says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? 
> > > I looked at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and they only have version 
> > > 2.5.4. How can that be?
> > >   
> >
> >
> > Cygwin patch is 2.5.8.  The version is taken from some Linux distro, I
> > don't remember which one.  The sources are where the binaries are, use
> > setup.exe to pull them on your machine.  As for the upstream sources, I
> > have no idea.  The bug report list is bug-gnu-utils AT gnu DOT org.
> >  
> Thanks for the information. It sounds a bit strange that the sources 
> does not come from gnu.org however. Something seems to be wrong here. 
> I have made a bcc of this message to bug-gnu-utils. I think the newest 
> sources should be available at gnu.org and its mirrors.