is there something totally screwed with "patch"?
Michael Schwendt
ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de
Sat Nov 15 14:53:27 UTC 2003
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:37:55 -0500 (EST), Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> i couldn't find anything on bugzilla about this, so here goes.
> after an hour of trying to figure out why a large compile of mine
> wasn't working, i've narrowed it down to the "patch" command.
> quite simply, "patch" doesn't.
>
> i've applied a short patch file against a directory of glibc
> source, the command assures me that it's applying the patch, it
> correctly tells me where the hunks were applied, and so on. and
> after it's all over ... no change to the file.
You should be able to find any new/modified files using the "find"
utility.
> as a test, i replaced my standard
>
> $ patch ... < patchfile
>
> with
>
> $ patch ... --input=patchfile
>
> which should be equivalent, and *now* it tells me that the
> patch file is not found! exactly the same file that allegedly
> worked when i used stdin.
>
> can anyone enlighten me?
No, because I can't reproduce it.
$ echo "hello" > A
$ echo "Hello" > B
$ diff A B > diff
$ patch --input=diff
patching file A
$
But a common mistake upon applying patch files is to not specify the
proper -pNUM argument, so patch doesn't find the files which should be
patched.
--
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20031115/e94c3a9b/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list