Your message dated Sun, 9 Apr 2006 18:53:08 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has caused the Debian Bug report #271946, regarding patch: fails to create new files when POSIXLY_CORRECT is set to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software author(s) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---Hi, I've finally taken the time to look into this. Re: Andreas Bach Aaen (AH/TED) 2004-09-16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am using Debian unstable. > > I cannot apply the User Mode Linux patch uml-patch-2.4.26-3.bz2 found on > user-mode-linux.sf.net againt a vanilla kernel 2.4.26. > The patch starts with: > ------------------- > diff -Naur -X ../exclude-files orig/arch/um/common.ld.in > um/arch/um/common.ld.in > --- orig/arch/um/common.ld.in 1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 > +++ um/arch/um/common.ld.in 2004-06-29 08:41:55.000000000 -0400 > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ > + .kstrtab : { *(.kstrtab) } > + > ------------------- > > It works OK under SuSE 9.1 with the rpm package: > patch-2.5.9-141 > > The Debian patch program asks for which file to patch while the SuSE version > recognises that it's a patch against an not existent file and hence creates > the new file. Re: Michael Fedrowitz 2004-09-20 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > tags 271946 - unreproducible moreinfo > retitle 271946 patch: fails to create new files when POSIXLY_CORRECT is set > thanks > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 08:53:09AM +0200, Andreas Bach Aaen (AH/TED) wrote: > > Hi, > > > Here is what I did: > > ******************** > > tar jxf linux-2.4.20.tar.bz2 > > cd linux-2.4.20 > > bzip2 -cd ../uml-patch-2.4.20-8.bz2 | patch -p1 > > This works perfectly fine for me. Do you have POSIXLY_CORRECT set by > chance? That would explain it; I'm just not sure yet whether that's a > bug or a feature. Anyway, for now you should be able to work around the > problem by unsetting POSIXLY_CORRECT. I can reproduce that here, patch refuses to create a new file from a (unified) diff when POSIXLY_CORRECT is set. Reading the manpage, it sounds like a bug, but the filename selection rules are complex, so I'm not entirely sure and would like feedback from the upstream people. Could you comment on this? Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
