[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: c99-to-c89 patch... oops?
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: c99-to-c89 patch... oops? |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:22:13 +0100 |
Matthew Woehlke <address@hidden> wrote:
> ...is there a reason the leading directories are inconsistent, or is
> this an oversight? Most of the patch applied with -p2 except shred.c,
> which needed -p0. This is from Jim's 6.7+ snapshot from Jan-26.
Thanks for the testing and report.
I didn't notice because the automatic patch-check
uses patch with no -p option, and that works fine.
Here's what I've done to fix it:
* src/c99-to-c89.diff: Make shred.c Index: and a/b prefixes
consistent, so this can be applied with patch -p0.
Reported by Matthew Woehlke.
* Makefile.maint (patch-check): Use patch with its -p2 option,
since that makes this check slightly more strict.
diff --git a/Makefile.maint b/Makefile.maint
index d526baa..53b61b6 100644
--- a/Makefile.maint
+++ b/Makefile.maint
@@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ sc_useless_cpp_parens:
patch-check:
rm -rf src-c89 address@hidden address@hidden
cp -a src src-c89
- (cd src-c89; patch -V never --fuzz=0) < src/c99-to-c89.diff \
+ (cd src-c89; patch -p2 -V never --fuzz=0) < src/c99-to-c89.diff \
> address@hidden 2>&1
if test "$${REGEN_PATCH+set}" = set; then \
diff -upr src src-c89 > new-diff || : ; fi
diff --git a/src/c99-to-c89.diff b/src/c99-to-c89.diff
index 04db772..997b009 100644
--- a/src/c99-to-c89.diff
+++ b/src/c99-to-c89.diff
@@ -83,13 +83,13 @@ index 364a21c..7a24014 100644
+ }
+ }
}
-Index: shred.c
+Index: src/shred.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /fetish/cu/src/shred.c,v
retrieving revision 1.130
diff -u -p -r1.130 shred.c
---- shred.c 3 Sep 2006 02:53:16 -0000 1.130
-+++ shred.c 3 Oct 2006 13:48:24 -0000
+--- a/src/shred.c 3 Sep 2006 02:53:16 -0000 1.130
++++ b/src/shred.c 3 Oct 2006 13:48:24 -0000
@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ dopass (int fd, char const *qname, off_t
out. Thus, it shouldn't give up on bad blocks. This
code works because lim is always a multiple of
Re: c99-to-c89 patch... oops?,
Jim Meyering <=