changeset in /hg/icedtea: 2008-02-15 Lillian Angel <langel at red...

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 22:30 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I haven't yet figured out what in the patch caused this. x86_64 is fine,
> as is icedtea6 (both x86 and x86_64), which seems to contain the same
> patch. The previous revision 00c531e8e94f builds fine.

I think I figured out what was happening (although I don't see why it
did build on my x86_64 box). The new icedtea-version.patch had an extra
hunk that didn't apply. The build then skipped the whole patch but
didn't fail. The following patch removes this extra hunk from the patch.
And it makes sure the build aborts if any of the required patches
doesn't apply cleanly (it still allows for some fuzz, maybe it makes
sense to also disallow that since it might make a hunk apply to a wrong
location).

2008-02-17  Mark Wielaard  <mark at klomp.org>

    * Makefile.am (patch.stamp): Stop and fail when patch doesn't apply.
    (clean-patch): Warn and fail when patch doesn't revert.
    (patch-ecj.stamp): Fail when patch doesn't apply.
    (clean-patch-ecj): Fail when patch doesn't revert.
    * Makefile.in: Regenerated.
    * patches/icedtea-version.patch: Remove extra hunk.

Committed,

Mark
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: patch-fail.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2780 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/attachments/20080217/c23be321/patch-fail.patch