Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 May 2004 19:51:07 +0100 | From | viro@parcelfa ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [RFC] adding support for .patches and /proc/patches.gz |
| |
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:37:34AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Jon Oberheide <jon@focalhost.com> writes: > > > I'm CC'ing this to the GNU patch maintainers. Hopefully they will have > > some input. > > As I understand it, Solution 4 is an incompatible change to 'patch' > which would cause 'patch' to not conform to POSIX, the LSB, or to > widespread existing practice. That's a pretty serious step, and I'm > not sure it's worth the aggravation. > > Solution 3 would be to add an option to 'patch' to cause it to log the > patches into a file. The basic idea seems like a worthwhile > improvement to 'patch', though (as you mention) it's more of a hassle > for users to remember the option. > > Perhaps there's a better way to address the problem in a way that > maintains compatibility while still satisfying your needs. For example, > if the kernel patches all contained a line like this at the start: > > Patch-log: .patches > > then 'patch' could log all the changes into the named file. This > would conform to POSIX.
Not needed.
diff -erN dir1/file dir2/file --- dir1/file +++ dir2/file 1i lines .
will do just fine. Remember that patch(1) can handle at least some ed scripts. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |