On 2002-01-07 08:30 -0700, Lawrence Gold wrote:
> If anyone has suggestions on how to improve this, I'm willing to listen.
> Patches have always been a bit of hit-'n'-miss for me. (Even applying
> other people's patches usually takes me two or three tries to get the
> directory right and the -p option right.)
Don't change anything, your diffs are fine. Diffs done this way
are easy to make (no renaming files) and self-documenting (it's
clear which version they're against and which version they yield).
from patch(1) :
To avoid confusion, send output that looks like this instead:
diff -Naur v2.0.29/prog/README v2.0.30/prog/README
--- v2.0.29/prog/README Mon Mar 10 15:13:12 1997
+++ v2.0.30/prog/README Mon Mar 17 14:58:22 1997
Avoid sending patches that compare backup file names like
README.orig, since this might confuse patch into patching a
backup file instead of the real file. Instead, send patches
that compare the same base file names in different directories,
e.g. old/README and new/README.
They're not difficult to apply :
$ cd xmame-0.1.0/.. && patch -p0 <xmame-0.2.0.diff
Alternatively, you can also do :
$ cd xmame-0.1.0 && patch -p1 <xmame-0.2.0.diff
but the first alternative is better in that it also automatically
checks that you're applying the patch against the right version of
xmame.
--
Andri Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
std::disclaimer ("Not speaking for my employer");
_______________________________________________
Xmame mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://toybox.twisted.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/xmame
