coreutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Patches to avoid use of make recursion in the 'src/' sub


From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Patches to avoid use of make recursion in the 'src/' subdir
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:10:17 +0200

Stefano Lattarini wrote:

> On 08/31/2012 03:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/31/2012 03:34 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>>> These should go on the top of my other pending series "[PATCH 0/7] Minor
>>>>> cleanup and refactoring":
>>>>>
>>>>>     <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2012-08/msg00205.html>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!  Looking at these now.
>>>> FYI, I pushed that other series an hour ago.
>>>>
>>> Ouch, some of them still have the S-o-B line!  Can you delete those, or
>>> should I resend?
>>
>> No problem.  As I tried to apply them with "git am FILE",
>> the new commit hook complained and left me in the editor,
>> where I removed them.
>>
>> However, 3/6 failed to apply.
>>
> Are you applying with "git am -3", right?  Otherwise, merge conflicts that
> can be solved automatically won't be.

Yes.  Here's what I hit with your original series

  $ git am -3 k
  Applying: maint: add our 'bootstrap_post_import_hook' function
  Applying: build: refactor how lists of coreutils programs are defined
  Applying: build: don't use recursive make to build the 'src' subdirectory
  fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless (cfg.mk).
  Repository lacks necessary blobs to fall back on 3-way merge.
  Cannot fall back to three-way merge.
  Patch failed at 0003 build: don't use recursive make to build the 'src' 
subdirectory
  The copy of the patch that failed is found in:
     /h/j/w/co/cu/.git/rebase-apply/patch
  When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --resolved".
  If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
  To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".

> Anyway, I can resend the series (now rebased on latest master) if that
> would make things easier ....

I worked around that problem, but as mentioned separately,
I'm seeing numerous make syntax-check problems, and for those
I would appreciate a re-spin.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]