Re: Quilt bug or needs repackaging?
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:37:57AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)'
> > dpkg-source: info: building saint using existing ./saint_2.3.3.orig.tar.gz
> > can't find file to patch at input line 3
> > Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
> > The text leading up to this was:
> > --------------------------
> > |--- SAINT_v2.3.3.orig/Makefile
> > |+++ SAINT_v2.3.3/Makefile
> > --------------------------
>
> Your quilt patch is -p0, but the quilt support in 3.0 (quilt) requires
> that all patches be applied with -p1. In other words, you need another
> level of directory structure in your patch header, so that it looks like:
>
> --- a/SAINT_v2.3.3/Makefile
> +++ b/SAINT_v2.3.3/Makefile
>
> (or whatever; the exact names in --- don't matter a huge amount).
$ quilt push
Applying patch fix-makefile.patch
can't find file to patch at input line 3
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|--- a/SAINT_v2.3.3/Makefile
|+++ b/SAINT_v2.3.3/Makefile
--------------------------
No file to patch. Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
Patch fix-makefile.patch does not apply (enforce with -f)
????
> > I can confirm that a simple
>
> > quilt push
>
> > is able to find the file to patch.
>
> That's interesting; I wonder if quilt itself now has logic to figure out
> -p0 versus -p1 and try to do the right thing.
I simply created the patch using
quilt new fix-makefile.patch
quilt edit Makefile
and endet up with the patch I posted. I also think that it is actually
a -p1 patch - things just get complicated by the fact that the orig
tarball contains two directories in its root (__MACOSX). As I said, if
I repackg the patch and dpkg-buildpackage behave normal - otherwise not.
> dpkg-buildpackage doesn't actually use quilt, though; it uses its own
> internal, mostly-compatible logic, which is simpler than everything that
> quilt can do.
Thanks for the clarification why quilt and dpkg-buildpackage might
behave differently - but for the moment I do not yet see a better
solution than repackaging (which I have no problems with and perhaps I'm
even able to teach upstream - just wanted to understand the issue
completely).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: