[debbugs-tracker] bug#15255: closed (coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:26:45 +0100
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#15255: coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 
or later
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #15255,
regarding coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
15255: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15255
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 03 Sep 2013 19:02:12 +0900
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Wanderlust/2.15.7 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.7 Emacs/22.3 (i386-msvc-nt6.1.7601) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) Meadow/3.02-dev (RINDOU) (2009-06-17 Rev.4261)
>
>
>
>
> With recent coreutils, "patch" command 2.5.9 causes failure of
> "./bootstrap" as below:
>
>   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** patch file gl/modules/tempname.diff didn't apply 
> cleanly
>   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** Stop.
>   missing header for unified diff at line 12 of patch
>   The text leading up to this was:
>   --------------------------
>   |
>   | Files:
>   | lib/tempname.c
>   --------------------------
>   File to patch: EOF
>   Skip this patch? [y]
>   1 out of 1 hunk ignored
>   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** patch file gl/modules/tempname.diff didn't apply 
> cleanly
>   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** Stop.
>   ./bootstrap[348]: build-aux/prefix-gnulib-mk: not found [No such file or 
> directory]
>   ./bootstrap: bootstrap_post_import_hook failed
>
> "patch" command 2.6 or later can avoid this error.
>
> "./bootstrap" should check not only availability of "patch" command,
> but also version of it.
>
> diff --git a/bootstrap.conf b/bootstrap.conf
> index 0863590..2535b20 100644
> --- a/bootstrap.conf
> +++ b/bootstrap.conf
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ git        1.4.4
>  gperf      -
>  gzip       -
>  makeinfo   4.13
> -patch      -
> +patch      2.6
>  perl       5.5
>  rsync      -
>  tar        -
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [FUJIWARA Katsunori]                             address@hidden
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#15255: coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:26:45 +0100
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2
>
>
>
>
> On 09/03/2013 11:02 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote:
> > With recent coreutils, "patch" command 2.5.9 causes failure of
> > "./bootstrap" as below:
> > 
> >   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** patch file gl/modules/tempname.diff didn't apply 
> > cleanly
> >   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** Stop.
> >   missing header for unified diff at line 12 of patch
> >   The text leading up to this was:
> >   --------------------------
> >   |
> >   | Files:
> >   | lib/tempname.c
> >   --------------------------
> >   File to patch: EOF
> >   Skip this patch? [y]
> >   1 out of 1 hunk ignored
> >   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** patch file gl/modules/tempname.diff didn't apply 
> > cleanly
> >   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** Stop.
> >   ./bootstrap[348]: build-aux/prefix-gnulib-mk: not found [No such file or 
> > directory]
> >   ./bootstrap: bootstrap_post_import_hook failed
> > 
> > "patch" command 2.6 or later can avoid this error.
> > 
> > "./bootstrap" should check not only availability of "patch" command,
> > but also version of it.
> > 
> > diff --git a/bootstrap.conf b/bootstrap.conf
> > index 0863590..2535b20 100644
> > --- a/bootstrap.conf
> > +++ b/bootstrap.conf
> > @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ git        1.4.4
> >  gperf      -
> >  gzip       -
> >  makeinfo   4.13
> > -patch      -
> > +patch      2.6
> >  perl       5.5
> >  rsync      -
> >  tar        -
>
> Yikes.
> This in fact looks like later versions of patch
> do not diagnose the issues with the mangled patch.
> They fuzz the first hunk and _ignore_ the second hunk??
>
> If I adjust the patch like this then all patch
> versions apply both hunks without issue:
>
> -@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
> +@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>
> I'll report the ignored hunk issue to patch authors.
>
> thanks!
> Pádraig.
>
>
> --- End Message ---