Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/12/16/10:31:41
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>What's wrong with the patched file having CRLF on Windows?
>
>
It is the default line endings on Windows so normally that is what you
want. However if you have a file with LF line endings instead then don't
you probably have that for a reason? I can of course not know the
reason, but I guess there is some.
I am not for example convinced that all cvs implementations on Windows
can handle that a checked out file has got changed line end format. In
fact I believe I have read that they can not, but I am not sure here
either. In any case it seems better to try to avoid problems.
>But why should I care about these strange combinations on Windows?
>Why isn't it enough that patching Unix-style files with Unix-style
>patch files works (using --binary) and preserves the EOL type, and
>patching DOS-style files with DOS-style patch files also works?
>
>
I do not know if you should care, but I do. It just happened to me that
things did not work because of one of these other non-working
combinations did occur for me. I did not first understand what happened.
I thought that maybe the file to patch had changed and not until I got a
message from others that the patch worked for them did I think of the
problem with CR-LF/LF. (The patch file to my surprise had LF endings. In
my opinion this should not have happened. I got a bit fooled by Emacs here.)
Now these surprising situations may take a lot of time when you got into
them. Especially for someone not used to them. As you surely know I am
trying to get more people on Windows to use Emacs and my interest in
patch and Cygwin comes out of this. Those people I think of are Windows
users. Maybe they have a long background in computers, but that does not
help very much when there is too many things that just does not work
out-of-the-box.
>Why the perfectionism? If the usual cases work so well, why do we
>want to insist on looking for trouble at all costs?
>
>
I hope it is not perfectionism. If you like me do many different things
with a computer you are likely to get into cases like those I have as
test cases. I can hardly touch a computer without finding something that
does not work on it ;-)
>Because I can find no other explanation for the fact that the test
>that failed for you worked for me. Maybe you should try installing
>all the utilities again, make sure what Diff and what Patch runs in
>each command, and see whether gnuwin32-test.cmd indeed fails for you.
>
>
Could we be misunderstanding each other? Which test case worked for you
but failed for me?
>I didn't run the shell scripts because
>there's no GnuWin32 port of Bash, and because I didn't want to mix the
>Diff/Patch issue with the shell behavior.
>
>
checkresults.sh just reads the output from the test and presents that in
a condensed manner. It could be run from most shells I believe (but the
test for ^M is perhaps a bit weak ...)
>That will not be easy using the techniques you tried in sh-tests, I
>suspect. Perhaps "od -c" is a good start.
>
>
You are right, I will try something else.
Thanks for the answers.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -