Re: Warning: patch-2.2 and zsh-3.1.2 patch

[<hzoli@VNET.IBM.COM> (Zoltan T. Hidvegi)]

Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
> Probably of some interest: I had problems with new patch 2.2. First, it
> rejects plain -p option (without operand); second, if given patch

That's bad.  I've been using using patch -p for ages.

> _without_ -p option at all, it cannot find any file with pathname.

Yes, you should not use it without -p.  It can patch the wrong Makefile.in
and other bad things can happen.

> patch -p0 seems to work. I don't remember, if -p0 was legal option in
> earlier versions of patch, but if yes, please, add it to your shell
> script.

Yes, -p0 was always legal, but I was always lazy to write this redundant
zero.  And I'm sure that I'll keep forgetting this well after I upgrade my
patch program.

> As a side note, our shell doesn't like
>      echo $errors hunk(s) failed.
> line. It complaints "syntax error: `(' unexpected". It is claimed to be
> POSIX-compliant.

Which is OK, since no other POSIX/Bourne shell can parse that line.  I did
not notice this since when I tested this, the patch did not fail and this
line was never executed.

Zoltan