Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/29/05 16:57 CST: > I'm undecided how to handle this. Using the -F option to patch is > educational and means we don't need to change the patch at all. OTOH, a > regenerated patch would apply cleanly but would mean more work. > > I'm inclined to use the -F option for the educational value. > > Opinions?
I think you could recreate the patch and commit it in 3 minutes or less. To me this is the way to go. That way, folks who have created scripts, etc. don't have to change things. Additionally, a note would probably be have to put in the book to show this one variance from such a common and consistent syntax everywhere else in the book. Not to mention that the man page says that increasing the fuzz factor can result in a faulty patch. My feeling is that using the -F flag is encouraging readers to do something which should really be discouraged. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 18:12:01 up 118 days, 17:45, 2 users, load average: 1.16, 1.12, 0.63 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
