Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 23:49:06 +0200 From: Baurjan Ismagulov To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: newline in patch command output Message-ID: <20040506214903.GB2023@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20040505125151 DOT GA20299 AT ata DOT cs DOT hacettepe DOT edu DOT tr> <4098F133 DOT FF888288 AT dessent DOT net> <20040506080853 DOT GD12047 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040506080853.GD12047@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-IsSubscribed: yes Hello, Corinna. On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:08:53AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I'm not sure if it "must", but it's the solution which costs as few grief > as possible. I tried various combinations but in the end, writing all > output files in binary was the only one to stop patch to screw up files > in one way or the other. > > Since you can be sure that patch creates always LF files, I don't see > a problem in using unix2dos on them afterwards. It's reliable. At first I didn't want it because I thought it would touch the unpatched files; this seems not to be the case, so I think I can live with it, although it takes some time to process the whole tree. Thanks for your time! With kind regards, Baurjan. -- 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/