is there something totally screwed with "patch"?

[Michael Schwendt]

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>