[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Non-unified patches and dpkg source format ‘3.0 (quilt)’.

On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> retitle 485330 Allow context diff in debian/patches/ in 3.0 (quilt) format
> thanks
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > That said, yes, using non-unified diff is as laughable as using RCS or
> > SCCS nowadays. Though I consider it a bug if dpkg refuses to apply a
> > patch that patch(1) (that it uses in the end) would apply fine. I shall
> > say that I absolutely don't get why there even is an "analyze()" routine
> > in Patch.pm,
> analyze() extracts information from the patch in order to:
> - create directories that do not exist yet (patch will not do that for
>   you AFAIK or at least that's the assumption that the current codebase
>   made, it might have changed since this part of the code has been written)

According to the man page, and to tests I did, it does

> - have a listing of all modified files in order to harmonize their
>   timestamp afterwards (required to avoid unwanted rebuilding when
>   patching auto-generated files and their source file)

Can't you get that using lsdiff from patchutils ?

> Extracting those information require to parse the patch files, so why not
> error out when the parser finds something not allowed?

With that we clearly agree ;)

> So while I have no opposition to allowing patches in context format (and
> not other non-contextual ones), the fix is most likely not the short one
> proposed by Charles.

It's not.

> Instead the Dpkg::Source::Patch object should have full support of the
> context format at least in the analyze() part.

Or you may use lsdiff.

> > if you want that, let patch(1) do it using its --dry-run
> > mode.  It'll report failed hunk and bad syntax the same way.
> You'll be surprised how much permissive patch actually is. IIRC missing context
> in unidiff is not always fatal for example (even when the numbers on the
> @@ lines stipulate that there should be more lines than what there is).

Sure, but there are some tools to verify how clean a patch is, but yeah,
you're probably right on that.
Intersec <http://www.intersec.com>
Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@intersec.com>
Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346
Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131
Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332
37 Rue Pierre Lhomme
92400 Courbevoie

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: