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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#15255: closed (coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6
 or later)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:27:03 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:26:45 +0100
with message-id <5225FFB5.4030508 <at> draigBrady.com>
and subject line Re: bug#15255: coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #15255,
regarding coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
15255: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15255
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: FUJIWARA Katsunori <foozy <at> lares.dti.ne.jp>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Subject: coreutils should requires "patch" command 2.6 or later
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 19:02:12 +0900

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        -

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[FUJIWARA Katsunori]                             foozy <at> lares.dti.ne.jp

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

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.

Previous Next

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