Hello,
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 08:36:05PM +0100, Lennart Borgman wrote:
says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I looked at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and they only have version 2.5.4. How can
that be?
2.5.4 is the latest stable version.
Development versions are on
Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul, where will the next stable version appear?
At ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch or ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/diffutils ?
At this point I'm planning to make 'patch' part of diffutils. No
schedule yet, though.
--
Unsubscribe info:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[snip]
Err... huh?
[snip]
After re-building patch 2.5.9 the problem (in the test case) does not appear.
Conclusion: the currently distributed patch 2.5.9 was compiled with perhaps an
older Cygwin environment or at least one that made configure get a different
result to
On Dec 14 15:22, Ren? Berber wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
[snip]
And I imagine both of you have testcases available to prove your
respective
claims. ?
Test case attached.
The files are part of mailman, I just included a shortened patch file and the
file to be patched. The test
René Berber wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
[snip]
And I imagine both of you have testcases available to prove your
respective claims. ?
Test case attached.
The files are part of mailman, I just included a shortened patch file and
the
file to be patched. The test procedure (with the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Joe Smith on 12/14/2005 8:43 PM:
Well, path 2.5.9 is available from an official gnu server, but is in a
very strange place:
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/diffutils/
diffutils? in the main archive it is in its own directory!
Yes, because
Joe Smith wrote:
Actually considering that the changelog of 2.5.9 indicates that it is
an actual release, it seems likely that it was never moved over to the
main site only because it was in the wrong directory.
What do I need to be able to build patch 2.5.9 for Cygwin? I downloaded
Lennart Borgman wrote:
What do I need to be able to build patch 2.5.9 for Cygwin? I downloaded
gcc-core and make and some other things. Trying to run ./conficure I get
configure:1652: checking for C compiler default output
configure:1655: gccconftest.c 5
Assembler messages:
FATAL:
Dave Korn wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
What do I need to be able to build patch 2.5.9 for Cygwin? I downloaded
gcc-core and make and some other things. Trying to run ./conficure I get
configure:1652: checking for C compiler default output
configure:1655: gccconftest.c 5
Assembler
Lennart Borgman wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
What do I need to be able to build patch 2.5.9 for Cygwin? I downloaded
gcc-core and make and some other things. Trying to run ./conficure I get
configure:1652: checking for C compiler default output
configure:1655: gcc
Dave Korn wrote:
What do I need to be able to build patch 2.5.9 for Cygwin? I downloaded
gcc-core and make and some other things.
OK, so what happens if you try a command like
as -o /cygdrive/d/temp/foo.o /dev/null
or a command like
touch /cygdrive/d/temp/ccXbQKlo.o
cheers,
Lennart Borgman wrote:
Thanks! There is a hit, I did not have as from Cygwin. Changed my path
a bit. But how do I find as? I would get the package search as it is
now is of no big use for such a name? ;-)
Sigh. 'as' is part of binutils. It contains the assembler and linker
and you will not
Lennart Borgman wrote:
Thanks! There is a hit, I did not have as from Cygwin. Changed my path
a bit. But how do I find as? I would get the package search as it is
now is of no big use for such a name? ;-)
Heh, that's true, although there is a handy trick for the package search:
since
Dave Korn wrote:
Heh, that's true, although there is a handy trick for the package search:
since cygwin runs on windows, all executables use the .exe ending in cygwin
packages. Compare:
http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=as
Cygwin Package List
Search Results
Found 755 matches
Brian Dessent wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
Thanks! There is a hit, I did not have as from Cygwin. Changed my path
a bit. But how do I find as? I would get the package search as it is
now is of no big use for such a name? ;-)
Sigh. 'as' is part of binutils. It contains the
Lennart Borgman wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
And the answer is that as is the GNU assembler, and it is part of the
binutils package, which lives under the 'Devel' category in setup.
Thanks for this! That trick is so handy in my opinion so it ought to
be as a tip on the search page right under
Lennart Borgman wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
And the answer is that as is the GNU assembler, and it is part of the
binutils package, which lives under the 'Devel' category in setup.
Thanks for this! That trick is so handy in my opinion so it ought to
be as a tip on
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[snip]
Err... huh?
[...]
$ patch --version
patch 2.5.8
[...]
$ cd mailman-2.1.6/
$ patch -p1 --dry-run ../indexing-2.1.6-0.1.patch
patching file templates/da/archidxfoot.html
$ patch -p1 ../indexing-2.1.6-0.1.patch
patching file templates/da/archidxfoot.html
Dave Korn wrote:
Hooray!
Thanks ;-)
1) You didn't say if you've run make install yet though, you should do that
rather than attempting to manually copy all the files to their correct
locations.
I tried a just to copy patch.exe. Then I saw this that I just wish I did
not. Here is a
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I tried a just to copy patch.exe. Then I saw this that I just wish I did
not. Here is a copy and paste from my screen output (a bit truncated):
from my screen
/cygdrive/d/dl/gnu/patch-2.5.9 ./patch.exe --version
patch 2.5.9
...
/cygdrive/d/dl/gnu/patch-2.5.9
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am not sure I understand what you mean. What is the requires line?
It is in the setup.ini file (which is generated from the individual
setup.hint files), which are not directly seen by the user but parsed by
setup.exe.
Where is it? Should binutils have been dowloaded
Dave Korn wrote:
This is (one of the reasons) why you should never put . in your $PATH!
Thanks, but I did not.
Also, after installing new software, you need to use hash -r to refresh
bash's cached list of locations of executables.
Ah, there it is. This is what I needed.
--
Brian Dessent wrote:
I am not sure I understand what you mean. What is the requires line?
It is in the setup.ini file (which is generated from the individual
setup.hint files), which are not directly seen by the user but parsed by
setup.exe.
Where is it? Should binutils have been
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I believe I did that without opening anything in the selection tree
first, but I am not totally sure. Is it necessary to open a node in the
tree for the process to continue?
No, it's not necessary. It should fill in any missing packages
regardless of what you do.
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32 patch)
says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I looked at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and they only have version 2.5.4. How can
that be?
Who maintains patch?
--
Unsubscribe info:
On Dec 14 19:30, Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32 patch)
says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I looked at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and they only have version 2.5.4. How can
that be?
Cygwin patch is 2.5.8.
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 14 19:30, Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32 patch)
says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I looked at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and they only have version 2.5.4. How can
that be?
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32 patch)
says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I looked at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and they only have version 2.5.4. How can
that be?
The latest GNU patch version compiles out of
René Berber wrote:
The latest GNU patch version compiles out of the box
*Where* is the latest GNU patch version?
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:48:57PM -0600, Ren? Berber wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32
patch) says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I
looked at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and they only have version 2.5.4.
How
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:48:57PM -0600, Ren? Berber wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32
patch) says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I
looked at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and
Dave Korn wrote:
René Berber wrote:
The latest GNU patch version compiles out of the box
*Where* is the latest GNU patch version?
In any of the GNU mirrors and of course in ftp.gnu.org
--
René Berber
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem
René Berber wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32 patch)
says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I looked at
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and they only have version 2.5.4. How can
that be?
The latest GNU
*** For Emacs: I would like the default on MS Windows to be CR-LF line
endings. That would in my opinion be less surpricing for an MS Windows user.
1. My opinion is that \n line endings on Cygwin (a Unix-ish environment) are
less surprising.
2. Cygwin already has a feature for determining
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 08:10:52PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:48:57PM -0600, Ren? Berber wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32
patch) says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:28:54PM +0100, Lennart Borgman wrote:
There are two things I would like here:
There's only one thing I'd like right now: pie.
It's a seasonal thing...
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:
that. It came from
Thunderbird on MS Windows and I just pasted into a new file in Emacs.
Then Emacs made the decision to save the file with LF line endings.
That's similar to the situation where I found that Cygwin's patch doesn't work,
the patch file had some ^M, the file to patch didn't and patch
Dave Korn wrote:
[snip]
And I imagine both of you have testcases available to prove your respective
claims. ?
Test case attached.
The files are part of mailman, I just included a shortened patch file and the
file to be patched. The test procedure (with the output I get):
$ mkdir
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:48:57PM -0600, Ren? Berber wrote:
Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32
patch) says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I
looked at ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and
Lennart Borgman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 14 19:30, Lennart Borgman wrote:
I am having trouble with patch. My Cygwin patch (and my GnuWin32 patch)
says it is version 2.5.9. But where is the sources for this? I looked at
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:28:54 +0100
From: Lennart Borgman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com, Emacs Devel emacs-devel@gnu.org
*** For patch: I would like it to discover that the line ending type of
the patch file and the file to patch differ.
Patch does that already if you use the
41 matches
Mail list logo
