On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> On 18-Sep-2000 Allan Rae wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure we've had more than occasion where contributors have forgotten
> > those new files simply because they expected diff would add the new files
> > to the patch for them. Sure they should have checked their patch and
> > noticed this but getting a patch and a tarball is a pain. Why not get a
> > patch from everyone? The modified diffutils provides a way for that.
> >
>
> I never said that I just said that we didn't reject patches with newfiles
> added as tar-ball, as you suggested in an earlier mail!
I didn't mention the "newfiles-in-a-tarball". In fact you said something
to John about rejecting patches (although that may have simply been
referring to the lack of a ChangeLog) even though the discussion then led
to find a way for him to send a patch and no tarball.
> > So we make life easier for some who've proven worthy and others just have
> > to struggle. I wish it was friday then I could leave out the smiley's ;-)
>
> NO, they can use your patched diffutils!!! (When they convice their system
> administrator that they are really the top of developement, secure and VERY
> handy ;)!
Or they can install them in their ~/bin. 256K compressed code and an
installed footprint of around 500KB if all diffutils components (docs,
executables etc.) are installed and are statically linked to the helper
code now shipped in glibc but also included in the diffutils distro (this
is the default and would require a patch to diffutils configure to fix
this).
> >> I understand that you want publicity for your patched diff-utils!
> >
> > Gotta start somewhere.
>
> BTW.: Could you provide a RPM for Redhat 6.x? I think I could use them, but
> I'm a bit lazy #:O)
Maybe. What's wrong with just using the source tree (apart from a
misnamed link?).
Correct links are now at:
http://www.devel.lyx.org/~rae/code/
Allan. (ARRae)
