Russ Allbery wrote: > Norbert Preining <prein...@logic.at> writes: > > > Is there a rational behind not allowing any fuzz? > > Fuzz indicates that the source file has changed since the patch has been > generated, which means that the patch may no longer apply properly. Fuzz > is a guess of convenience by the patch program that the result is > *probably* what was intended. > > But fuzz indicates there may be a problem; for example, I've seen patches > apply with fuzz that add duplicate lines to a file (because the lines were > added upstream in a different location), resulting in everything from > compilation errors to serious hidden bugs in the program. > > Therefore, I think it makes sense to require the maintainer to confirm > that, yes, the patch applied with fuzz still makes the correct change and > isn't indicative of an error. A good way to indicate that is to unfuzz > the patch.
JFTR: Doing `quilt refresh' won't preserve the above described issue. You can only avouid this by reporting issues upstream and tracking their status or by checking the necessity of every patch with every new upstream version. Regards, Daniel -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120515062713.3...@gmx.net
