Re: [Quilt-dev] Re: My current quilt 0.21 :)

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Friday 31 January 2003 15:27, James Rowe wrote:
> Oops
>
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 04:24:38 +0000
>
> James Rowe <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   The use of $PATCHSCRIPTS appears to be broken here, I am going to
> >   have
> > a proper look after I've finished a couple of other things.  There
> > is a large chance it is related to the non-GNU version of sed I am
> > unfortunately stuck using for the next hour or so, so I don't want
> > to make any kind of sweeping statement about it.
>
>   It wasn't my buggy sed causing the problem, it was dodgy delimiter
> selection in stripit().  $P containing '/'s made sed barf.

I have checked the code and found some regular expression quoting flaws. 
(I also had to add a quote_bre function because sed only understands 
basic regexps).

>   See attached stupidly long name patch.  I've also removed the sed
> from the new.in because stripit() is called on the next line anyway.

No patch is attached it seems.

>   I've not really tried to break it that much, so it possibly still
> does break, as I am implementing a new handler for $P now.
>
>   There is an initial version of the autoconf/make enabled quilt at
> http://www.jnrowe.uklinux.net/files/quilt-0.21.1.tar.bz2

Hmmm. I don't find that file either.

>   It is missing quite a few needed features, for example docs aren't
> installed or generated(I'm looking in to a new method first).

The configure.in isn't supposed to install anything, it shall only 
figure out a few paths to utilities and how to run the C compiler, and 
generate from a Makefile.in a proper Makefile. The Makefile.in contains 
placeholders for @DIFF@ etc. instead of the hard
coded path names that are in the current Makefile. That's all.

>  It is
> just to show you all that some work is actually being done here ;)  I
> am probably going to ditch quite a few of the tests too(C based) once
> I have checked it on a few archs to see which ones should be
> used(expect a small patch to backupfiles by the looks of it).

>  And
> that brings me on to one other thing.  backup-files has been renamed
> to backupfiles because automake is a little restrictive.

Huh? What does Automake even have to know about backup-files? I don't 
understand.


Cheers,
Andreas.