On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 8:53 PM James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote:
> Summary: you are conflating git patches with diff patches. > Agreed, makes sense now. > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:55:49PM +0100, Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote: > > telepathy-salut-0.8.1.tar.gz does contain lib/ext/wocky as a > > directory with files in it and it has the github repo as it's > > upstream and that doesn't contain lib/ext /wocky as a directory but > > as a wocky submodule. I don't see a reason why the git submodule is > > affecting it at the moment > > It has affected it because of how you prepared the patch using git > instead of using diff. > Yeah I normally prepare such patches with git as most of the time the upstream on github is still active. Now I know different. > > Yeah I haven't created an PRs as I'm trying to get it to build > > locally first, you can find the patch here. > > The patch is in error because; > > (a) it is generated using git(1), and contains no content except > submodule hashes, yet you are asking to apply using patch(1), > > (b) unlike patch0, it does not have complete file paths. > > You should generate the patch again, using diff -ru, between two > clones that have been prepared to the corresponding states. > Yeah I will. > > > The commit upstream shows that there was a change but the change was > > to a submodule, the source files from telepathyfreedesktop.org > > contains lib/ext/wocky but the source on github doesn't and that > > explains the error from build.log > > You should not use the tar.gz from github, because it > > (a) does not equal the distributed software; therefore unsupported, > > (b) does not contain autoconf prepared source; therefore broken, and > > (c) does not have submodules expanded; therefore incomplete. > > > I used rpmbuild to build just the %prep section and ls shows there > > files in lib /ext/wocky but still throws same error when applying > > the patch and I don't get why right now but I think it's because the > > patch is pointing to a submodule commit. > > No, it is because the patch is not intended for processing by > patch(1). > Yeah, makes sense now. > The patch(1) command has no clue (or glue) for handling git patches in > that way. > I understand now. > Hope that helps! > Yeah, thanks a lot. > > -- > James Cameron > https://quozl.linux.org.au/ -- Ibiam Chihurumnaya ibiamchihurumn...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list SoaS@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas