Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: Warning: patch-2.2 and zsh-3.1.2 patch
- X-seq: zsh-workers 3139
- From: <hzoli@xxxxxxxxxxxx> (Zoltan T. Hidvegi)
- To: borsenkow.msk@xxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Warning: patch-2.2 and zsh-3.1.2 patch
- Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 14:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970512143954.13907A-100000@itsrm1> from Andrej Borsenkow at "May 12, 97 02:51:42 pm"
- Sender: <hzoli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
> Probably of some interest: I had problems with new patch 2.2. First, it
> rejects plain -p option (without operand); second, if given patch
That's bad. I've been using using patch -p for ages.
> _without_ -p option at all, it cannot find any file with pathname.
Yes, you should not use it without -p. It can patch the wrong Makefile.in
and other bad things can happen.
> patch -p0 seems to work. I don't remember, if -p0 was legal option in
> earlier versions of patch, but if yes, please, add it to your shell
> script.
Yes, -p0 was always legal, but I was always lazy to write this redundant
zero. And I'm sure that I'll keep forgetting this well after I upgrade my
patch program.
> As a side note, our shell doesn't like
> echo $errors hunk(s) failed.
> line. It complaints "syntax error: `(' unexpected". It is claimed to be
> POSIX-compliant.
Which is OK, since no other POSIX/Bourne shell can parse that line. I did
not notice this since when I tested this, the patch did not fail and this
line was never executed.
Zoltan
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author