Re: [PATCH] [RFC] adding support for .patches and /proc/patches.gz
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 13:52:56 EST
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:37:34AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Jon Oberheide <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
diff -erN dir1/file dir2/file
will do just fine. Remember that patch(1) can handle at least some ed
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/