Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsc!daemon From: paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: warning on recent patch + admin suggestions Message-ID: <1790@hplabsc.HP.COM> Date: Sun, 10-May-87 22:53:33 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1790 Posted: Sun May 10 22:53:33 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 11-May-87 04:44:30 EDT Sender: daemon@hplabsc.HP.COM Reply-To: ptsfa!vixie!paul@ames (Paul Vixie Esq) Organization: Vixie Enterprises, San Francisco Lines: 51 Approved: taylor@hplabs (with 'postmail') I just installed the recently posted 'Sys V.[23]' patches, and it worked pretty well, considering... The patches were in 'diff' format, not 'diff -c' format (okay, so SysV doesn't have 'diff -c'...). Any lines that were changed will have the old and new versions of the text; Patch can figure out where to stick the change by looking at *my* source, in case the line numbers vary -- which they *do*. On additions, however, 'diff' outputs an 'a' command with some line numbers, and Patch knows only to stick the new text after the specified line number. If the line numbers vary (as mine did), the text will be added in the wrong place. In my specific case, defs.h was patched to include an '#ifdef BSD' around the '#include '. I had already made this change from a previous note in this group; this patch gave something like #ifdef BSD #include #else #ifdef BSD #include #else #endif #include #endif (or something utterly bizarre and wrong that would make my cc(1) try to include even though BSD was set...) Patch cannot know that the line numbers differ unless 'diff -c' was used to make the patch. I could have installed the patch by hand, and in fact I have had to do that a lot, since Patch just can't figure out some of the combinations of versions I've sent it from this group. I can't suggest that people without 'diff -c' refrain from posting patches; that would be rude, unrealistic, and counterproductive. What *would* work would be to serialize the patches in some way -- ideally, get someone to keep a definitive version, accept & approve & broadcast patches. It would have to be someone who liked ELM a lot -- which lets me out, sorry, I can suggest this, but I can't implement it. I know that the entire collection of ELM users would benefit from serialized patches, and most everyone would fully support anyone who wanted the job. The person who does this needn't make any improvements to the code themselves; the minimum need in this job is just to coordinate the efforts of other folks. Any volunteers? Reply to the net... -- Paul A. Vixie {ptsfa, crash, winfree}!vixie!paul 329 Noe Street dual!ptsfa!vixie!paul@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU San Francisco CA 94116 paul@vixie.UUCP (415) 864-7013