Stephen Powell wrote: > As promised earlier today, I now have the following patch files on my > web site ready for download: > > http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/vtoc.h.diff (apply to > include/parted/vtoc.h) > http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/dasd.c.diff (apply to > libparted/labels/dasd.c) > http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/fdasd.c.diff (apply to > libparted/labels/fdasd.c) > http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/vtoc.c.diff (apply to > libparted/labels/vtoc.c) > > I have not made any updates to NEWS. You can edit that as you see > fit. These are ordinary "context diffs", with three lines of context. > I don't understand this "git" stuff. I've never used it. Sorry. > My starting point was the Debian source package for parted, version 2.2-5. > > To my way of thinking, these patches are logically one fix, which I > would describe as "corrections to partition size and location > calculations for type 1 partitions for s390 dasd". If you want to
I don't often see context diffs, as opposed to unified diffs. Most people prefer to read the latter. You can generate them with diff -u if you're using GNU diff, or with git diff if you ever get around to using git. I've confirmed that those patches do apply locally and removed a couple of trialing spaces so "make syntax-check" still passes. Once I have confirmation that the FSF has received your paperwork, I'll review and test. One way that you can help in the mean time is by writing a slightly more detailed summary of what changed. For example * what is it that would fail without your patch, but works with it? * how does your improvement make things better? That is the sort of information I'd like to put in NEWS. Does this count as a bug fix? It seems so, but there's also the free-space change that looks more like an improvement than a bug fix. I haven't looked at details yet... _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
