On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
- create directories that do not exist yet (patch will not do that for
you AFAIK or at least that's the assumption that the current codebase
made, it might have changed since this part of the code has been written)
According to the man page,
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
retitle 485330 Allow context diff in debian/patches/ in 3.0 (quilt) format
thanks
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
That said, yes, using non-unified diff is as laughable as using RCS or
SCCS nowadays. Though I
retitle 485330 Allow context diff in debian/patches/ in 3.0 (quilt) format
thanks
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
That said, yes, using non-unified diff is as laughable as using RCS or
SCCS nowadays. Though I consider it a bug if dpkg refuses to apply a
patch that patch(1) (that it
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 04:12:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
(filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Given that,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
(filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Given that, this seems like a tempest
in a teapot to me. Just convert the diff into whatever format the tool
that you're
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Giving a standard interface to reviewers is a laudable goal, but I do not see
reviewers except in elaborate scenarios about security. Therefore I will not
trade a real benefit for a hypothetical one, even if both are neglectible.
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
(filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Given that, this seems like a tempest
in a teapot to me. Just convert the diff
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Giving a standard interface to reviewers is a laudable goal, but I do not see
reviewers except in elaborate scenarios about security. Therefore I will not
trade a real benefit for a
On Thu, Aug 06 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
This said, if there were a project-wide momentum for standardising on one
patch
format, I would not oppose. This would probably be a release goal, a
preparation for a Policy change, or a demand from the security team to the
package manintainers.
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:22:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
According to a quick look at the diff wikipedia page[1], unified diffs
appeared in GNU diff 1.15, released in January 1991.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff
Time to move on?
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:22:14PM +0200,
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (06/08/2009):
So to summarise, you are suggesting me to write upstream that:
1) We want to review their patches,
2) We can not do this with context diffs,
3) We do want to actively reject non-unified diffs despite our tools work
well with them,
Sure.
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (06/08/2009):
But, since we tweak the headers, the check can get added before the
first dereferencement. Of course, there are the fuzzy stuff with patch,
but sounds less likely to happen.
Heh, might have left that to the attentive reader, but let's fix the
typo:
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (06/08/2009):
Heh, might have left that to the attentive reader, but let's fix the
typo: s/before/after/. :)
And given I wasn't even using the right option, I'm going to hide for a
while, lalala. (Thanks pusling.)
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 07:52:08PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
So to summarise, you are suggesting me to write upstream that:
Why do you need to write anything to upstream? If they still insist on
context diffs (or whatever that is called), I guess there is not much we
can do. Debian insists
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org writes:
Oh, if you really need an example, what about the following? We tend to
fix GCC issues. We tweak headers. Some might get added, some might be
removed. We have such a patch. A CVE arrives. A context diff gets
published. It gets applies on the top of the
So... you all realize, right, that old-style context diffs and unified
diffs can be trivially converted into each other? They have the same
amount of information.
filterdiff --format=unified context.diff
filterdiff --format=context unified.diff
(filterdiff comes with patchutils.)
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:07:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
After deleting the following check, my source package builds fine.
--- a/scripts/Dpkg/Source/Patch.pm
+++ b/scripts/Dpkg/Source/Patch.pm
@@ -325,9 +325,6 @@ sub analyze {
unless (defined($_ = getline($diff_handle))) {
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 06:33:28PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Those are actually valid ed scripts IIRC.
Okay, sorry, I meant to remove that sentence that is actually wrong...
sorry 'bout that.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··Omadco...@debian.org
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
FWIW I've read this sub-thread with some kind of consternation,
especially seeing how wrong some arguments are.
First of all, non-unified diffs are called context diffs, and can have
... wait for it ... context. Those are actually valid ed scripts
On Thu, Aug 06 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
So... you all realize, right, that old-style context diffs and unified
diffs can be trivially converted into each other? They have the same
amount of information.
filterdiff --format=unified context.diff
filterdiff --format=context
Le Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
(filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Given that, this seems like a tempest
in a teapot to me. Just convert the diff into whatever format the tool
that you're using expects or the reviewer wants to read.
Hi Russ and everybody,
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
First of all, non-unified diffs are called context diffs
Not necessarily. I've been using the term to reply to *any* diff output
format that isn't unified-diff format. From my perspective, there is the
de facto standard of unified-diff format, used by
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org writes:
First of all, non-unified diffs are called context diffs
Not necessarily. I've been using the term to reply to *any* diff output
format that isn't unified-diff format.
s/reply to/refer to/
--
\
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (05/08/2009):
In my workplace's cafeteria, 99 % of the people eat curry rice with a
spoon, and 1 % with chopsticks. But this is causing no trouble, and
never the spoon users ask the chopsticks users to change their
instrument (and I can tell you that I do not
]] Charles Plessy
| I am all for campaigning for the unified diff format if there are
| arguments on which I can base a discussion with Upstream, but a mere
| cultural preference, be it the one of a very large majority, is a too
| weak argument.
They're easier to review (because you have a bit
25 matches
Mail list logo
