[csw-maintainers] [csw-pkgsubmissions] patching made simpler?
rupert at opencsw.org
Sat Jul 2 14:19:31 CEST 2011
what is the best procedure to produce patches for subversion-1.7.0-alpha2.
some of the old ones are not applying cleanly? i saw
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 02:30, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from rupert THURNER's message of Wed Jan 05 14:12:46 -0500 2011:
> Hi Rupert,
> I'm sorry this wasn't easier for you.
> > * try to build, not all patches applied
> > * throw away the old patches, check in
> First, a recommendation: Never throw away patch/script/foo files from
> an existing build until you've got a working replacement. I've kicked
> myself a few times for doing this. :)
> In a situation like this, I'd see if I could get the patches to apply
> manually using patch or other methods.
> > * "gmake extract" to get the source back
> > * edit the files again like it should be
> Although it may not complain, makepatch would prefer to be called
> after `gmake patch` to ensure all existing patches are applied. I
> forget whether I enforced this with a constraint or not...If not, I
> don't recall a the reason why I didn't.
> > * "gmake makepatch"
> > * "gmake package", failed as there is a new file which would need
> > patching as well.
> > * "gmake clean", "gmake extract" again
> > * edit the file
> > * "gmake makepatch" again
> Did you see your first patch applied in this process at all? If not,
> you're working on a pre-patched set of files.
> > then i forgot to delete a line in a file which is already patched, and
> > i thought about repeating above procedure again:
> > 1. gmake extract
> > applied patch 001
> > 2. gmake makepatch
> > tried to apply patch 001 again
> > which failed.
> This is likely due to creating a patch against the unpatched tree
> above. If so, I should look at making sure makepatch cannot run
> unless the patch target has already been called. You could,
> potentially still have problems though...
> > then i gave up for the moment ... but this cannot be it, isn't it?
> > should we switch to the whole source from subversion to git and it
> > would be neater? then patches could be rebased instead of applied
> > newly.
> I wouldn't object, but others may disagree. It's also a huge
> undertaking. I know that many others are also using git quite a bit
> lately too.
> The first major portion of this transition would require separating
> GAR (the tool) from the build recipes. Git simply doesn't handle
> (nicely) the idea of an external like subversion does. This would be
> the final impetus to separate the two, most likely using Sebastian's
> excellent mgar!
> I know that Maciej has been having both success and frustration using
> the git-svn bridge as of late...
>  It would actually make my day!
> Ben Walton
> Systems Programmer - CHASS
> University of Toronto
> C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at lists.opencsw.org
> .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the maintainers