BK Id header removals causes patch to fail!

BK Id header removals causes patch to fail!

[Joakim Tjernlund]

I am trying to patch my linuxppc_2_4_devel tree, version 2.4.20 into linuxppc_2_4_devel current.
I have generated patch with bk rset -h -r1.1174,1.1294 | bk gnupatch. When I try to apply
that patch to my tree I get a lot of:

patching file arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n] y
Hunk #1 FAILED at 4.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 29 (offset -3 lines).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 490 (offset 3 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 526 (offset 11 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 586 (offset 3 lines).
Hunk #6 succeeded at 639 (offset 11 lines).
1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c.rej


As far as I can tell it is the BK Id removals that is causing this. How can I
workaround this problem? Did I do something wrong?

A typical BK Id in a file looks likes this:

And in the patch it looks like this:
/*
 * BK Id: SCCS/s.setup.c 1.111 10/29/02 10:49:05 trini
 */

And the patch:
@@ -1,7 +1,4 @@
 /*
- * BK Id: %F% %I% %G% %U% %#%
- */
-/*

 Jocke


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

RE: BK Id header removals causes patch to fail!

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> I am trying to patch my linuxppc_2_4_devel tree, version 2.4.20 into linuxppc_2_4_devel current.
> I have generated patch with bk rset -h -r1.1174,1.1294 | bk gnupatch. When I try to apply
> that patch to my tree I get a lot of:
>
> patching file arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c
> Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n]
> Apply anyway? [n] y
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 4.
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 29 (offset -3 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 490 (offset 3 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 526 (offset 11 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 586 (offset 3 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 639 (offset 11 lines).
> 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c.rej
>
>
> As far as I can tell it is the BK Id removals that is causing this. How can I
> workaround this problem? Did I do something wrong?
>
> A typical BK Id in a file looks likes this:
>
> And in the patch it looks like this:
> /*
>  * BK Id: SCCS/s.setup.c 1.111 10/29/02 10:49:05 trini
>  */
>
> And the patch:
> @@ -1,7 +1,4 @@
>  /*
> - * BK Id: %F% %I% %G% %U% %#%
> - */
> -/*
>
>  Jocke

I can't find BK command/option which will fix this problem.
What was the rationale behind this pointless cleanup? I can understand if
you do this in 2.5 but why do it in 2.4?

Is there a way to fix this using BK?

 Jocke


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

RE: BK Id header removals causes patch to fail!

[Paul Mackerras]

Joakim Tjernlund writes:

> > A typical BK Id in a file looks likes this:
> >
> > And in the patch it looks like this:
> > /*
> >  * BK Id: SCCS/s.setup.c 1.111 10/29/02 10:49:05 trini
> >  */
> >
> > And the patch:
> > @@ -1,7 +1,4 @@
> >  /*
> > - * BK Id: %F% %I% %G% %U% %#%
> > - */
> > -/*
> >
> >  Jocke
>
> I can't find BK command/option which will fix this problem.
> What was the rationale behind this pointless cleanup? I can understand if
> you do this in 2.5 but why do it in 2.4?
>
> Is there a way to fix this using BK?

I assume you mean that it looks like SCCS/s.setup.c ... in the file
and %F% ... in the patch.

Try doing a 'bk -r get -k' in the tree that you are patching before
you patch.  That should get all the files in the %F% ... form.

Paul.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BK Id header removals causes patch to fail!

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
>
> > > A typical BK Id in a file looks likes this:
> > >
> > > And in the patch it looks like this:
> > > /*
> > >  * BK Id: SCCS/s.setup.c 1.111 10/29/02 10:49:05 trini
> > >  */
> > >
> > > And the patch:
> > > @@ -1,7 +1,4 @@
> > >  /*
> > > - * BK Id: %F% %I% %G% %U% %#%
> > > - */
> > > -/*
> > >
> > >  Jocke
> >
> > I can't find BK command/option which will fix this problem.
> > What was the rationale behind this pointless cleanup? I can understand if
> > you do this in 2.5 but why do it in 2.4?
> >
> > Is there a way to fix this using BK?
>
> I assume you mean that it looks like SCCS/s.setup.c ... in the file
> and %F% ... in the patch.

Yes, sorry for the cut and paste error

>
> Try doing a 'bk -r get -k' in the tree that you are patching before
> you patch.  That should get all the files in the %F% ... form.

hmm, the tree I am patching is a CVS tree. I can't get these in %F% form with CVS.

           Jocke

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BK Id header removals causes patch to fail!

[Paul Mackerras]

Joakim Tjernlund writes:

> hmm, the tree I am patching is a CVS tree. I can't get these in %F%
> form with CVS.

True.  Well, the best I can suggest is to write a script that runs sed
on all the files to change the BK Id lines back to the %F% form.

This sort of problem in patching is the primary reason why I removed
the BK Id lines.  They caused far more patch rejects than they were
worth (particularly now that Marcelo uses BK).

Paul.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BK Id header removals causes patch to fail!

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 10:56:38AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund writes:
>
> > hmm, the tree I am patching is a CVS tree. I can't get these in %F%
> > form with CVS.
>
> True.  Well, the best I can suggest is to write a script that runs sed
> on all the files to change the BK Id lines back to the %F% form.

BTW, I nuked the tags, both in BK and in a CVS tree, with the same bit
of sed'ing.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/