From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 21:34:00 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] support/scripts/apply-patches: use "git apply" as a fallback when applying patches In-Reply-To: <55a5605d-5773-16d5-ef79-a37dac3c009a@mind.be> (Arnout Vandecappelle's message of "Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:17:55 +0100") References: <20190110203004.9812-1-thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> <87wonbhnny.fsf@tarshish> <20190111091552.72fba6ad@windsurf> <875zutvvf2.fsf@tarshish> <55a5605d-5773-16d5-ef79-a37dac3c009a@mind.be> Message-ID: <87o987jepz.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle writes: Hi, >> With this patch a package selection change that works on the developer's >> machine where git is installed, would fail on the production build >> machine that is missing git. Is there a clear error message in case of >> patch failure? > I'm with Baruch here. The reason to have this feature is exactly to have the > possibility to have patches that modify binaries or that modify symlinks. Thus, > it becomes likely that someone will submit such a patch. It will work for the > developer, and it will also work in the autobuilders since all of them have git > installed (otherwise they wouldn't be able to clone the Buildroot repo). Thus, > any such patch will go unnoticed. I agree, that is not good. > I don't think it hurts to force git as a dependency. If we do that, should we then always use git apply instead of patch? (and drop the patch dependency) -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard