Re: GNU patch gone stale

[John Baldwin]

On 09-Jun-99 Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, W Gerald Hicks wrote:
> 
>> > Our GNU patch has gone stale in the tree.  Anyone want to upgrade it to
>> > 2.5?
>> > If not, I'll do it myself eventually. Patch 2.1 which we have now is
>> > broken
>> > for certain diffs (recently tried with gimp 1.1.5-1.1.6 diffs), while 2.5
>> > works fine.
>> 
>> The gimp patch situation offers a good example why having contrib'ified
>> things backed by a corresponding port can be a Good Thing.
>> 
>> Naturally, using the updated version in ports/devel/patch is an easy
>> workaround until you get contrib updated.  (We've encountered this
>> here too)
> 
> I can't remember why, but you darn well better not just update patch
> without seeing how it works with cvs.  It was discussed before in
> current, and there's a good reason why it's where it is.