-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
mock build fail: can't find file to patch at input line XX #85
Comments
Okay, I know what the problem is. 🤦 The first patch for "meanwhile" is applied with -p0:
The rest are p1
the leading "a/" and "b" are the difference When packit creates patches with git-format it does it with -p1 all the time. So... 🤦🤦🤦
Edit: my bad, this is about build part, not creation: so we need to explicitly support the p0/p1 formats with d2s and packit. |
some patches in dist-git are applied with -p0 which implies --no-prefix option for format-patch this commit enables that: packit is able generate a patch file with format-patch without leading a/ and b/ in the patch diff by default format-patch generates patches for -p1 application 🤦♂️ packit/dist-git-to-source-git#85 (comment) Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
packit/packit#978 packit#85 (comment) Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
some patches in dist-git are applied with -p0 which implies --no-prefix option for format-patch this commit enables that: packit is able generate a patch file with format-patch without leading a/ and b/ in the patch diff by default format-patch generates patches for -p1 application 🤦♂️ packit/dist-git-to-source-git#85 (comment) Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
packit/packit#978 packit#85 (comment) Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
packit/packit#978 packit#85 (comment) Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
packit/packit#978 packit#85 (comment) Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
%setup -T means that rpm should not unpack source0 - if we turn %setup into %autosetup thus getting a git repo after running it, we'll get an empty git repo - bad. These cases usually unpack/construct the source tree in %prep in a custom way. It would result into first patch containing the whole source tree - we don't want that. With this change, we'll create the git repo before applying first patch which should match the initial source tree. I hope it's clear we are getting into depths of odd packaging Related packit#85 Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
%setup -T means that rpm should not unpack source0 - if we turn %setup into %autosetup thus getting a git repo after running it, we'll get an empty git repo - bad. These cases usually unpack/construct the source tree in %prep in a custom way. It would result into first patch containing the whole source tree - we don't want that. With this change, we'll create the git repo before applying first patch which should match the initial source tree. I hope it's clear we are getting into depths of odd packaging Related packit#85 Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
For most of the packages (51 out of 85), the issue has been fixed and the repos were created. For pkgs, some new issues appeared, but it seems for some (mtx, openoffice.org-dict-cs_CZ, openslp, pcre,xdelta, bacula), this error remains (but I am not 100% sure) |
will take a look on the rest |
%setup -T means that rpm should not unpack source0 - if we turn %setup into %autosetup thus getting a git repo after running it, we'll get an empty git repo - bad. These cases usually unpack/construct the source tree in %prep in a custom way. It would result into first patch containing the whole source tree - we don't want that. With this change, we'll create the git repo before applying first patch which should match the initial source tree. I hope it's clear we are getting into depths of odd packaging Related packit#85 Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
Packages:
Build output (tail)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: