Re: Questions about patch

[Gary Setter]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Eggert" <address@hidden>
To: "Gary Setter" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Questions about patch


> "Gary Setter" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > So I was defining macros based on the complier type to
straighten things
> > out. It's kind of ugly.
>
> Yes, but that is what autoconf is for.
>
> > Last, where would I submit a proposed patch to patch.
>
> Please send it to <address@hidden> with a cc: to
> <address@hidden>.

Dear Mr Eggert,

I'm sorry to take so long to respond to your e-mail. I've done
some tests on my humble PC, and have not yet been able to create
a version that is portable and that accepts diff files of all
types. I have one problem with three parts. The parts are: the
use of cr/lf to terminate lines verses, opening files as binary
verses text and the failure of the fseek() function.

The problem has a long history. Based on the newsgroups that I've
been reading, the consensus is that the above fseek was not meant
to work with text files. That seems to mean that patch should
open files to read in binary mode only, throw out carriage
returns, and terminate lines where line feeds are found. I have
no problem doing that, but it would make the existing
switch --binary meaningless. Since the switch is there, I would
like to ask why it was implemented?

One other question, is a portable source for diff needed? My own
needs are met, but I'm willing to put some more time into this if
you think it would helpful.

With best regards,
Gary Setter