Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/10/12/18:02:46
Hi,
it's gonna get a bit complex. Please see below.
Jason Tishler writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 05:08:50PM +0000, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> > I just tried your build instructions but they seem to fail on my
> > system.
>
> Can anyone else confirm the above? I just ate my own dog food (again)
> and it still works.
>
> > The problem is that patch claims that your second patch is a
> > reverse patch.
>
> I just verified that my patch.exe is the same as the one on a Cygwin
> mirror. Markus, please verify that your version of patch.exe is
> current.
>
I did a CygWin update just last week, but I ran it again to be sure. I
also downloaded the patch.tar.gz from a mirror and compared patch -v
output, the timestamp and filesize - all looks ok. And of course I
made sure with 'which patch' that I actually run the right one.
But there are two problems with patching the rcs sources:
1) I still maintain that your patch is at least partly a reverse
patch. Did you go ahead and paste the patch from your mail back into a
file and test it? Compare e.g. the beginning of the first hunk of
rcs-5.7-cygwinb20.patchb and your patch:
rcs-5.7-cygwinb20.patchb:
-----------------------------------------------------------
diff -rc rcs-5.7/src/conf.sh rcs-5.7-good/src/conf.sh
*** rcs-5.7/src/conf.sh Mon Nov 15 07:17:49 1999
--- rcs-5.7-good/src/conf.sh Mon Nov 15 08:49:40 1999
***************
*** 311,325 ****
# We must do has_readlink next, because it might generate
# #include directives that affect later definitions.
! $ech >&3 "$0: configuring has_readlink, readlink_isreg_errno $dots"
cat >a.c <<EOF
#include "$A_H"
static char b[7];
int
! main() {
if (readlink("a.sym2",b,7) == 6 && strcmp(b,"a.sym1") == 0 &&
readlink("a.c",b,7) == -1 && errno != ENOENT
) {
if (errno == EINVAL)
printf("EINVAL\n");
else
--- 311,338 ----
# We must do has_readlink next, because it might generate
# #include directives that affect later definitions.
! $ech >&3 "$0: configuring has_readlink, readlink_isreg_errno, bad_readlink_enoent $dots"
cat >a.c <<EOF
#include "$A_H"
static char b[7];
int
! main(argc, argv) int argc; char **argv; {
[...]
rcs-5.7-cygwin2.patch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
diff -rc rcs-5.7/src/conf.sh rcs-5.7-good/src/conf.sh
*** rcs-5.7/src/conf.sh Mon Nov 15 07:17:49 1999
--- rcs-5.7-good/src/conf.sh Mon Nov 15 08:49:40 1999
***************
*** 311,325 ****
# We must do has_readlink next, because it might generate
# #include directives that affect later definitions.
! $ech >&3 "$0: configuring has_readlink, readlink_isreg_errno $dots"
cat >a.c <<EOF
#include "$A_H"
static char b[7];
int
! main() {
if (readlink("a.sym2",b,7) == 6 && strcmp(b,"a.sym1") == 0 &&
readlink("a.c",b,7) == -1 && errno != ENOENT
) {
if (errno == EINVAL)
printf("EINVAL\n");
else
--- 311,338 ----
# We must do has_readlink next, because it might generate
# #include directives that affect later definitions.
! $ech >&3 "$0: configuring has_readlink, readlink_isreg_errno, bad_readlink_enoent $dots"
cat >a.c <<EOF
#include "$A_H"
static char b[7];
int
! main(argc, argv) int argc; char **argv; {
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------
This is pretty much the same, so I'd be surprised if patch did not
complain when you apply your patch after the first one. I'm afraid you
pasted a wrong patch file into your mail.
2) If I only apply your patch, the last hunk fails. I scrutinized this
and found that on my box the patched files end up with CR/LF. The last
hunk is actually a second patch for conf.sh, so it fails because I try
to patch a file with CR/LF endings. If I split the patch file and
revert conf.sh back to LF after the first hunks, the last hunk also
works.
So I'd be glad if anyone could tell me how I can run patch without
screwing up my line endings. I have only binary mounts. As far as I
understand the User's Guide, CYGWIN=binmode is default anyway, so this
should also be no problem.
Anyway, after getting your patch into place with this somewhat kludgy
procedure, I can again configure (this time it finds diff in
/usr/bin), make, make install without problems. make installcheck
fails again, though. But this could be the same line ending problem as
with patch.
regards,
Markus
--
Markus Hoenicka, PhD
UT Houston Medical School
Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology
6431 Fannin MSB4.114
Houston, TX 77030
(713) 500-6313, -7477
(713) 500-7444 (fax)
Markus DOT Hoenicka AT uth DOT tmc DOT edu
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -