groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Groff] Musescore-Lilypond-groff


From: Keith Marshall
Subject: Re: [Groff] Musescore-Lilypond-groff
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 12:42:03 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0

Hi Ralph, Grégoire,

On 24/10/15 11:12, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Grégoire,
> 
> Keith wrote:
>>> OK, I reinstalled groff-base 1.22.3-1 and  groff 1.22.3-1 with dpkg
>>> -i.
>>
>> Those are binary packages.
>>
>>> The patch is made for /contrib/glilypond/glilypond.pl The new groff
>>> works fine, but now, I cannot find the /contrib directory:
>>
>> You need the source package; looks like you didn't install it.
> 
> What is your end goal?  Are you trying to submit a patch and want to
> check it works?  Or patch your distribution's package and re-build?

I'm guessing, but from earlier in the thread, it seems that Grégoire is
trying to correct a typo in the glilypond.pl installed with the binary
packages, (and presumably still present in the reinstalled packages), by
applying a patch against the source version of that file, rather than
against its installed counterpart.  There are two possible ways, (and
potentially a hybrid third way), to achieve this:

1) Grab the full source distribution, patch it, rebuild, and install the
rebuilt image.

2) Identify the installed location of the defective file, make it
current working directory, and apply the patch with the "-p" option
adjusted to exclude *all* directories from the file path recorded in the
patch file.

The first method is the more robust, but involves more effort; the
second kind of assumes that the patch affects only the one file, its
installed image is a verbatim copy of the source, and the user has write
permission in the directory where it is installed.  A hybrid of the two
is also feasible:

3) Grab the source, and patch it, then rather than rebuild and install,
copy the patched glilypond.pl to overwrite the defective version which
was installed by the binary package; again, this requires the installed
file to be a verbatim copy of the source, and write permission in the
installation directory.

In either of cases (2) and (3), it may also be necessary to chmod the
installed file copy, to make it executable.




reply via email to

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