GNU bug report logs - #15255
coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later

Previous Next

Package: coreutils;

Reported by: FUJIWARA Katsunori <foozy <at> lares.dti.ne.jp>

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:04:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #10 received at 15255-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
To: FUJIWARA Katsunori <foozy <at> lares.dti.ne.jp>
Cc: 15255-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15255: coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:26:45 +0100
On 09/03/2013 11:02 AM, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote:
> With recent coreutils, "patch" command 2.5.9 causes failure of
> "./bootstrap" as below:
> 
>   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** patch file gl/modules/tempname.diff didn't apply cleanly
>   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** Stop.
>   missing header for unified diff at line 12 of patch
>   The text leading up to this was:
>   --------------------------
>   |
>   | Files:
>   | lib/tempname.c
>   --------------------------
>   File to patch: EOF
>   Skip this patch? [y]
>   1 out of 1 hunk ignored
>   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** patch file gl/modules/tempname.diff didn't apply cleanly
>   gnulib/gnulib-tool: *** Stop.
>   ./bootstrap[348]: build-aux/prefix-gnulib-mk: not found [No such file or directory]
>   ./bootstrap: bootstrap_post_import_hook failed
> 
> "patch" command 2.6 or later can avoid this error.
> 
> "./bootstrap" should check not only availability of "patch" command,
> but also version of it.
> 
> diff --git a/bootstrap.conf b/bootstrap.conf
> index 0863590..2535b20 100644
> --- a/bootstrap.conf
> +++ b/bootstrap.conf
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ git        1.4.4
>  gperf      -
>  gzip       -
>  makeinfo   4.13
> -patch      -
> +patch      2.6
>  perl       5.5
>  rsync      -
>  tar        -

Yikes.
This in fact looks like later versions of patch
do not diagnose the issues with the mangled patch.
They fuzz the first hunk and _ignore_ the second hunk??

If I adjust the patch like this then all patch
versions apply both hunks without issue:

-@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
+@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@

I'll report the ignored hunk issue to patch authors.

thanks!
Pádraig.




This bug report was last modified 11 years and 263 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.