PATCH(1) PATCH(1) NNAAMMEE patch - apply a diff file to an original SSYYNNOOPPSSIISS ppaattcchh [options] [origfile [patchfile]] [+ [options] [orig- file]]... but usually just ppaattcchh LOCAL 6 PATCH(1) PATCH(1) with many other contributors. EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT TTMMPPDDIIRR Directory to put temporary files in; default is /tmp. SSIIMMPPLLEE__BBAACCKKUUPP__SSUUFFFFIIXX Extension to use for backup file names instead of ``.orig'' or ``~''. VVEERRSSIIOONN__CCOONNTTRROOLL Selects when numbered backup files are made. FFIILLEESS $TMPDIR/patch* SSEEEE AALLSSOO diff(1) NNOOTTEESS FFOORR PPAATTCCHH SSEENNDDEERRSS There are several things you should bear in mind if you are going to be sending out patches. First, you can save people a lot of grief by keeping a patchlevel.h file which is patched to increment the patch level as the first diff in the patch file you send out. If you put a Prereq: line in with the patch, it won't let them apply patches out of order without some warning. Second, make sure you've specified the file names right, either in a context diff header, or with an Index: line. If you are patching some- thing in a subdirectory, be sure to tell the patch user to specify a --pp option as needed. Third, you can create a file by sending out a diff that compares a null file to the file you want to create. This will only work if the file you want to create doesn't exist already in the tar- get directory. Fourth, take care not to send out reversed patches, since it makes people wonder whether they already applied the patch. Fifth, while you may be able to get away with putting 582 diff listings into one file, it is probably wiser to group related patches into separate files in case something goes haywire. DDIIAAGGNNOOSSTTIICCSS Too many to list here, but generally indicative that _p_a_t_c_h couldn't parse your patch file. The message ``Hmm...'' indicates that there is unprocessed text in the patch file and that _p_a_t_c_h is attempting to intuit whether there is a patch in that text and, if so, what kind of patch it is. _P_a_t_c_h will exit with a non-zero status if any reject files were created. When applying a set of patches in a loop it behooves you to check this exit status so you don't apply a later patch to a partially patched file. LOCAL 7 PATCH(1) PATCH(1) CCAAVVEEAATTSS _P_a_t_c_h cannot tell if the line numbers are off in an _e_d script, and can only detect bad line numbers in a normal diff when it finds a ``change'' or a ``delete'' command. A context diff using fuzz factor 3 may have the same prob- lem. Until a suitable interactive interface is added, you should probably do a context diff in these cases to see if the changes made sense. Of course, compiling without errors is a pretty good indication that the patch worked, but not always. _P_a_t_c_h usually produces the correct results, even when it has to do a lot of guessing. However, the results are guaranteed to be correct only when the patch is applied to exactly the same version of the file that the patch was generated from. BBUUGGSS Could be smarter about partial matches, excessively deviant offsets and swapped code, but that would take an extra pass. If code has been duplicated (for instance with #ifdef OLD- CODE ... #else ... #endif), _p_a_t_c_h is incapable of patch- ing both versions, and, if it works at all, will likely patch the wrong one, and tell you that it succeeded to boot. If you apply a patch you've already applied, _p_a_t_c_h will think it is a reversed patch, and offer to un-apply the patch. This could be construed as a feature. LOCAL 8 .