RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled
  1. Chat
  2. Useful links
  3. Polls

Featured content

Patch problem

This discussion is connected to the gimp-docs-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

2 of 2 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.
Patch problem julien 19 Jan 21:08
  Patch problem Sven Neumann 21 Jan 12:28
julien
2007-01-19 21:08:32 UTC (about 18 years ago)

Patch problem

I have a problem with xml files written under Windows I received from Pierre and Kolbjoern: some of them are correctly patched, others are not. I got error messages like "Hunk #2 FAILED at 11". For example with docks.xml in this diff when I tried to patch it:

Index: src/using/docks.xml =================================================================== --- src/using/docks.xml (r?vision 1677) +++ src/using/docks.xml (copie de travail) @@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
-
+
<!DOCTYPE sect1 PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.3//EN" "http://www.docbook.org/xml/4.3/docbookx.dtd">



- $Revision$
+ $Revision : 1623 $
2006-02-24
j.h

@@ -100,7 +101,7 @@
Dialogues
Cr?er une nouvelle fen?tre avec onglets
- dans la Bo?te ? outils:
+ dans la Bo?te ? outils :

...........

I verified that files are in the UNIX UTF-8 format. What does this "Hunk #2 FAILED at 11" mean? Why is there two different revision numbers in this diff? What can I do to solve the problem?

Julien

Sven Neumann
2007-01-21 12:28:19 UTC (about 18 years ago)

Patch problem

Hi,

On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 21:08 +0100, julien wrote:

I have a problem with xml files written under Windows I received from Pierre and Kolbjoern: some of them are correctly patched, others are not. I got error messages like "Hunk #2 FAILED at 11". For example with docks.xml in this diff when I tried to patch it:

I verified that files are in the UNIX UTF-8 format. What does this "Hunk #2 FAILED at 11" mean?

It means that there's a problem to apply the second hunk of the patch in line 11. In your case that's the part where the Revision keyword is patched. This shouldn't happen. A diff created using 'svn diff' shouldn't contain differences to the $Revision keyword (see "Keywords and Spurious Differences" at
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s02.html

In this particular case you can safely ignore the problem. But you should find out how Pierre and Kolbjoern create Pierre and Kolbjoern their diff files.

Sven