Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 08/09/05 12:06 CST: > Also FYI, I was told not to bother with re-diffing patches. One I > re-diffed did happen to get accepted for the repository, but only after it > was shown that the 'fuzzy' patch created a couple of unwanted files.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think that "unwanted files" is a product of not rediffing correctly. Or perhaps you are speaking of the files.ext~ files that are created when a patch does not apply cleanly. Here's my theory. Take a virgin source tree and apply a patch. It applies with offsets, fuzz and everything else. This makes changes to the source tree. Of course, remove all the files.ext~ that were created by the patch that didn't apply cleanly. Now rename that source tree and recreate a new virgin source tree and create a diff between those two. Using this procedure, I cannot see how there would be a difference in what the two different patches would do. Other than the patch that doesn't apply cleanly leaves behind files.ext~ files in the tree. And these files are not significant to anything. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 12:16:01 up 129 days, 11:49, 2 users, load average: 1.09, 1.08, 0.85 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
