[Buildroot] [PATCH] apply-patches: run patch in batch mode

[Buildroot] [PATCH] apply-patches: run patch in batch mode

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

If the file to be patched is missing, then `patch' will interactively
ask for a file to be patched. This is annoying in e.g. the autobuilders
because they have to wait for a timeout instead of failing.

Giving the '-t' (dry-run) option to patch fixes this: it will skip the
missing file, and return a non-zero exit code. So the build cleanly
fails.

Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
---
I actually discovered this during my allyesconfig night build, where I
use make -k.

Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
---
 support/scripts/apply-patches.sh | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/support/scripts/apply-patches.sh b/support/scripts/apply-patches.sh
index 2995ea9..e9c6869 100755
--- a/support/scripts/apply-patches.sh
+++ b/support/scripts/apply-patches.sh
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ function apply_patch {
     echo ""
     echo "Applying $patch using ${type}: "
 	echo $patch >> ${builddir}/.applied_patches_list
-    ${uncomp} "${path}/$patch" | patch -g0 -p1 -E -d "${builddir}"
+    ${uncomp} "${path}/$patch" | patch -g0 -p1 -E -d "${builddir}" -t
     if [ $? != 0 ] ; then
         echo "Patch failed!  Please fix ${patch}!"
 	exit 1
-- 
1.8.4.rc3

[Buildroot] [PATCH] apply-patches: run patch in batch mode

[Luca Ceresoli]

Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote:
> If the file to be patched is missing, then `patch' will interactively
> ask for a file to be patched. This is annoying in e.g. the autobuilders
> because they have to wait for a timeout instead of failing.
>
> Giving the '-t' (dry-run) option to patch fixes this: it will skip the

"dry-run"? Of course not. :)
s/dry-run/batch mode/

> missing file, and return a non-zero exit code. So the build cleanly
> fails.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>

With that fixed:
Acked-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>

Luca

[Buildroot] [PATCH] apply-patches: run patch in batch mode

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

If the file to be patched is missing, then `patch' will interactively
ask for a file to be patched. This is annoying in e.g. the autobuilders
because they have to wait for a timeout instead of failing.

Giving the '-t' (batch mode) option to patch fixes this: it will skip the
missing file, and return a non-zero exit code. So the build cleanly
fails.

Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Acked-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
---
I actually discovered this during my allyesconfig night build, where I
use make -k.

Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
---
 support/scripts/apply-patches.sh | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/support/scripts/apply-patches.sh b/support/scripts/apply-patches.sh
index 2995ea9..e9c6869 100755
--- a/support/scripts/apply-patches.sh
+++ b/support/scripts/apply-patches.sh
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ function apply_patch {
     echo ""
     echo "Applying $patch using ${type}: "
 	echo $patch >> ${builddir}/.applied_patches_list
-    ${uncomp} "${path}/$patch" | patch -g0 -p1 -E -d "${builddir}"
+    ${uncomp} "${path}/$patch" | patch -g0 -p1 -E -d "${builddir}" -t
     if [ $? != 0 ] ; then
         echo "Patch failed!  Please fix ${patch}!"
 	exit 1
-- 
1.8.4.rc3

[Buildroot] [PATCH] apply-patches: run patch in batch mode

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be> writes:

 Arnout> If the file to be patched is missing, then `patch' will interactively
 Arnout> ask for a file to be patched. This is annoying in e.g. the autobuilders
 Arnout> because they have to wait for a timeout instead of failing.

 Arnout> Giving the '-t' (batch mode) option to patch fixes this: it will skip the
 Arnout> missing file, and return a non-zero exit code. So the build cleanly
 Arnout> fails.

 Arnout> Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
 Arnout> Acked-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
 Arnout> ---
 Arnout> I actually discovered this during my allyesconfig night build, where I
 Arnout> use make -k.

Committed, thanks.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[Buildroot] [PATCH] apply-patches: run patch in batch mode

[Ralph Siemsen]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 07:44:15AM +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote:

> If the file to be patched is missing, then `patch' will interactively
> ask for a file to be patched. This is annoying in e.g. the autobuilders
> because they have to wait for a timeout instead of failing.

Hi Arnout,

I believe you are seeing the same issue I reported recently.
My solution was to test for the patch existence explicitly:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/266895/

-Ralph

[Buildroot] [PATCH] apply-patches: run patch in batch mode

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 22/08/13 21:13, Ralph Siemsen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 07:44:15AM +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote:
>
>> If the file to be patched is missing, then `patch' will interactively
>> ask for a file to be patched. This is annoying in e.g. the autobuilders
>> because they have to wait for a timeout instead of failing.
>
> Hi Arnout,
>
> I believe you are seeing the same issue I reported recently.
> My solution was to test for the patch existence explicitly:
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/266895/

  It's not the patch file that doesn't exist, but the file that should be 
patched.

  Regards,
  Arnout


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] [PATCH] apply-patches: run patch in batch mode

[Ralph Siemsen]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:38:58PM +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
>  It's not the patch file that doesn't exist, but the file that
> should be patched.

Oh I see what you mean. Yes, that could be an issue too.
So I guess both issues should get patched ;-)

-Ralph