On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > - create directories that do not exist yet (patch will not do that for
> > you AFAIK or at least that's the assumption that the current codebase
> > made, it might have changed since this part of the code has been written)
>
> According to the ma
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> retitle 485330 Allow context diff in debian/patches/ in 3.0 (quilt) format
> thanks
>
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > That said, yes, using non-unified diff is as laughable as using RCS or
> > SCCS nowadays. Thoug
retitle 485330 Allow context diff in debian/patches/ in 3.0 (quilt) format
thanks
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> That said, yes, using non-unified diff is as laughable as using RCS or
> SCCS nowadays. Though I consider it a bug if dpkg refuses to apply a
> patch that patch(1) (that
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 04:12:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >> Le Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> >> >
> >> > (filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Given that, this s
On Thu, Aug 06 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> This said, if there were a project-wide momentum for standardising on one
> patch
> format, I would not oppose. This would probably be a release goal, a
> preparation for a Policy change, or a demand from the security team to the
> package manintainer
Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Giving a standard interface to reviewers is a laudable goal, but I do not see
>> reviewers except in elaborate scenarios about security. Therefore I will not
>> trade a real benefit for a hypothetical one, e
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Le Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> >
>> > (filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Given that, this seems like a tempest
>> > in a teapot to me. Just convert the diff into wh
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Giving a standard interface to reviewers is a laudable goal, but I do not see
> reviewers except in elaborate scenarios about security. Therefore I will not
> trade a real benefit for a hypothetical one, even if both are neglectible.
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:45:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> >
> > (filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Given that, this seems like a tempest
> > in a teapot to me. Just convert the diff into whatever format the tool
> > that
Ben Finney writes:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>
> > First of all, non-unified diffs are called "context diffs"
>
> Not necessarily. I've been using the term to reply to *any* diff output
> format that isn't unified-diff format.
s/reply to/refer to/
--
\ “One seldom discovers a true be
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> First of all, non-unified diffs are called "context diffs"
Not necessarily. I've been using the term to reply to *any* diff output
format that isn't unified-diff format. From my perspective, there is the
de facto standard of unified-diff format, used by the vast majorit
Le Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26:02AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> (filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Given that, this seems like a tempest
> in a teapot to me. Just convert the diff into whatever format the tool
> that you're using expects or the reviewer wants to read.
Hi Russ and everybod
On Thu, Aug 06 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So... you all realize, right, that old-style context diffs and unified
> diffs can be trivially converted into each other? They have the same
> amount of information.
>
> filterdiff --format=unified < context.diff
> filterdiff --format=context <
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> FWIW I've read this sub-thread with some kind of consternation,
> especially seeing how wrong some arguments are.
>
> First of all, non-unified diffs are called "context diffs", and can have
> ... wait for it ... context. Those are actually valid ed scripts IIRC.
> The
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 06:33:28PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Those are actually valid ed scripts IIRC.
Okay, sorry, I meant to remove that sentence that is actually wrong...
sorry 'bout that.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··Omadco...@debian.org
OO
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:07:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> After deleting the following check, my source package builds fine.
>
> --- a/scripts/Dpkg/Source/Patch.pm
> +++ b/scripts/Dpkg/Source/Patch.pm
> @@ -325,9 +325,6 @@ sub analyze {
> unless (defined($_ = getline($diff_handle))
So... you all realize, right, that old-style context diffs and unified
diffs can be trivially converted into each other? They have the same
amount of information.
filterdiff --format=unified < context.diff
filterdiff --format=context < unified.diff
(filterdiff comes with patchutils.) Gi
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Oh, if you really need an example, what about the following? We tend to
> fix GCC issues. We tweak headers. Some might get added, some might be
> removed. We have such a patch. A CVE arrives. A context diff gets
> published. It gets applies on the top of the other patche
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 07:52:08PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> So to summarise, you are suggesting me to write upstream that:
Why do you need to write anything to upstream? If they still insist on
context diffs (or whatever that is called), I guess there is not much we
can do. Debian insists
Cyril Brulebois (06/08/2009):
> Heh, might have left that to the attentive reader, but let's fix the
> typo: s/before/after/. :)
And given I wasn't even using the right option, I'm going to hide for a
while, lalala. (Thanks pusling.)
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Cyril Brulebois (06/08/2009):
> But, since we tweak the headers, the check can get added before the
> first dereferencement. Of course, there are the fuzzy stuff with patch,
> but sounds less likely to happen.
Heh, might have left that to the attentive reader, but let's fix the
typo: s/before/aft
Charles Plessy (06/08/2009):
> So to summarise, you are suggesting me to write upstream that:
>
> 1) We want to review their patches,
> 2) We can not do this with context diffs,
> 3) We do want to actively reject non-unified diffs despite our tools work
> well with them,
Sure.
> 4) The rea
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:22:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
> According to a quick look at the diff wikipedia page[1], unified diffs
> appeared in GNU diff 1.15, released in January 1991.
>
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff
>
> Time to move on?
Le Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:22:14PM +0
]] Charles Plessy
| I am all for campaigning for the unified diff format if there are
| arguments on which I can base a discussion with Upstream, but a mere
| cultural preference, be it the one of a very large majority, is a too
| weak argument.
They're easier to review (because you have a bit o
Charles Plessy (05/08/2009):
> In my workplace's cafeteria, 99 % of the people eat curry rice with a
> spoon, and 1 % with chopsticks. But this is causing no trouble, and
> never the spoon users ask the chopsticks users to change their
> instrument (and I can tell you that I do not leave a single
25 matches
Mail list logo
