[gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5853 bytes --]

for various reasons/limitations/bugs/whatever, i rewrote epatch.  seems to
work for me, but in case someone wants to check before i release:
epatch() {
	_epatch_draw_line() {
		# create a line of same length as input string
		[[ -z $1 ]] && set "$(printf "%65s" '')"
		echo "${1//?/=}"
	}

	unset P4CONFIG P4PORT P4USER # keep perforce at bay #56402

	# Let the rest of the code process one user arg at a time --
	# each arg may expand into multiple patches, and each arg may
	# need to start off with the default global EPATCH_xxx values
	if [[ $# -gt 1 ]] ; then
		local m
		for m in "$@" ; do
			epatch "${m}"
		done
		return 0
	fi

	local SINGLE_PATCH="no"
	# no args means process ${EPATCH_SOURCE}
	[[ $# -eq 0 ]] && set -- "${EPATCH_SOURCE}"

	if [[ -f $1 ]] ; then
		SINGLE_PATCH="yes"
		set -- "$1"
		# Use the suffix from the single patch (localize it); the code
		# below will find the suffix for us
		local EPATCH_SUFFIX=$1

	elif [[ -d $1 ]] ; then
		# Some people like to make dirs of patches w/out suffixes (vim)
		set -- "$1"/*${EPATCH_SUFFIX:+."${EPATCH_SUFFIX}"}

	else
		# sanity check ... if it isn't a dir or file, wtf man ?
		[[ $# -ne 0 ]] && EPATCH_SOURCE=$1
		echo
		eerror "Cannot find \$EPATCH_SOURCE!  Value for \$EPATCH_SOURCE is:"
		eerror
		eerror "  ${EPATCH_SOURCE}"
		eerror "  ( ${EPATCH_SOURCE##*/} )"
		echo
		die "Cannot find \$EPATCH_SOURCE!"
	fi

	local PIPE_CMD
	case ${EPATCH_SUFFIX##*\.} in
		xz)      PIPE_CMD="xz -dc"    ;;
		lzma)    PIPE_CMD="lzma -dc"  ;;
		bz2)     PIPE_CMD="bzip2 -dc" ;;
		gz|Z|z)  PIPE_CMD="gzip -dc"  ;;
		ZIP|zip) PIPE_CMD="unzip -p"  ;;
		*)       ;;
	esac

	[[ ${SINGLE_PATCH} == "no" ]] && einfo "${EPATCH_MULTI_MSG}"

	local x
	for x in "$@" ; do
		# If the patch dir given contains subdirs, or our EPATCH_SUFFIX
		# didn't match anything, ignore continue on
		[[ ! -f ${x} ]] && continue

		local patchname=${x##*/}

		# Apply single patches, or forced sets of patches, or
		# patches with ARCH dependant names.
		#	???_arch_foo.patch
		# Else, skip this input altogether
		local a=${patchname#*_} # strip the ???_
		a=${a%%_*}              # strip the _foo.patch
		if ! [[ ${SINGLE_PATCH} == "yes" || \
		        ${EPATCH_FORCE} == "yes" || \
		        ${a} == all     || \
		        ${a} == ${ARCH} ]]
		then
			continue
		fi

		# Let people filter things dynamically
		if [[ -n ${EPATCH_EXCLUDE} ]] ; then
			# let people use globs in the exclude
			eshopts_push -o noglob

			local ex
			for ex in ${EPATCH_EXCLUDE} ; do
				if [[ ${patchname} == ${ex} ]] ; then
					eshopts_pop
					continue
				fi
			done
			eshopts_pop
		fi

		if [[ ${SINGLE_PATCH} == "yes" ]] ; then
			if [[ -n ${EPATCH_SINGLE_MSG} ]] ; then
				einfo "${EPATCH_SINGLE_MSG}"
			else
				einfo "Applying ${patchname} ..."
			fi
		else
			einfo "  ${patchname} ..."
		fi

		# most of the time, there will only be one run per unique name,
		# but if there are more, make sure we get unique log filenames
		local STDERR_TARGET="${T}/${patchname}.out"
		if [[ -e ${STDERR_TARGET} ]] ; then
			STDERR_TARGET="${T}/${patchname}-$$.out"
		fi

		printf "***** %s *****\n\n" "${patchname}" > "${STDERR_TARGET}"

		# Decompress the patch if need be
		local count=0
		local PATCH_TARGET
		if [[ -n ${PIPE_CMD} ]] ; then
			PATCH_TARGET="${T}/$$.patch"
			echo "PIPE_COMMAND:  ${PIPE_CMD} ${x} > ${PATCH_TARGET}" >> "${STDERR_TARGET}"

			if ! (${PIPE_CMD} "${x}" > "${PATCH_TARGET}") >> "${STDERR_TARGET}" 2>&1 ; then
				echo
				eerror "Could not extract patch!"
				#die "Could not extract patch!"
				count=5
				break
			fi
		else
			PATCH_TARGET=${x}
		fi

		# Check for absolute paths in patches.  If sandbox is disabled,
		# people could (accidently) patch files in the root filesystem.
		# Or trigger other unpleasantries #237667.  So disallow -p0 on
		# such patches.
		local abs_paths=$(egrep -n '^[-+]{3} /' "${PATCH_TARGET}" | awk '$2 != "/dev/null" { print }')
		if [[ -n ${abs_paths} ]] ; then
			count=1
			printf "NOTE: skipping -p0 due to absolute paths in patch:\n%s\n" "${abs_paths}" >> "${STDERR_TARGET}"
		fi

		# Dynamically detect the correct -p# ... i'm lazy, so shoot me :/
		while [[ ${count} -lt 5 ]] ; do
			# Generate some useful debug info ...
			(
			_epatch_draw_line "***** ${patchname} *****"
			echo
			echo "PATCH COMMAND:  patch -p${count} ${EPATCH_OPTS} < '${PATCH_TARGET}'"
			echo
			_epatch_draw_line "***** ${patchname} *****"
			) >> "${STDERR_TARGET}"

			if (patch -p${count} ${EPATCH_OPTS} --dry-run -f < "${PATCH_TARGET}") >> "${STDERR_TARGET}" 2>&1 ; 
then
				(
				_epatch_draw_line "***** ${patchname} *****"
				echo
				echo "ACTUALLY APPLYING ${patchname} ..."
				echo
				_epatch_draw_line "***** ${patchname} *****"
				patch -p${count} ${EPATCH_OPTS} < "${PATCH_TARGET}" 2>&1
				) >> "${STDERR_TARGET}"

				if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
					echo
					eerror "A dry-run of patch command succeeded, but actually"
					eerror "applying the patch failed!"
					#die "Real world sux compared to the dreamworld!"
					count=5
				fi
				break
			fi

			: $(( count++ ))
		done

		# if we had to decompress the patch, delete the temp one
		if [[ -n ${PIPE_CMD} ]] ; then
			rm -f "${PATCH_TARGET}"
		fi

		if [[ ${count} -ge 5 ]] ; then
			echo
			eerror "Failed Patch: ${patchname} !"
			eerror " ( ${PATCH_TARGET} )"
			eerror
			eerror "Include in your bugreport the contents of:"
			eerror
			eerror "  ${STDERR_TARGET}"
			echo
			die "Failed Patch: ${patchname}!"
		fi

		# if everything worked, delete the patch log
		rm -f "${STDERR_TARGET}"
		eend 0
	done

	[[ ${SINGLE_PATCH} == "no" ]] && einfo "Done with patching"
	: # everything worked
}
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> for various reasons/limitations/bugs/whatever, i rewrote epatch.  seems to
> work for me, but in case someone wants to check before i release:

Wouldn't it be safer to let this run on, say, Patrick's or Deigo's
tinderboxes for a day or so before pushing this to eutils?

Murphy's law becomes more applicable as the affected domain of a
change increases :)

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 01:06:22PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > for various reasons/limitations/bugs/whatever, i rewrote epatch.  seems to
> > work for me, but in case someone wants to check before i release:
> 
> Wouldn't it be safer to let this run on, say, Patrick's or Deigo's
> tinderboxes for a day or so before pushing this to eutils?
> 
> Murphy's law becomes more applicable as the affected domain of a
> change increases :)

Err... that's a damn fine idea actually, although it requires getting 
them to agree to it.

For changes of this sort, abusing the tinderboxes to get a real world 
test run makes a lot of sense.

Diego/Patrick- thoughts?

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Diego Elio “Flameeyes” Pettenò]

Il giorno ven, 18/12/2009 alle 23.56 -0800, Brian Harring ha scritto:
> 
> For changes of this sort, abusing the tinderboxes to get a real world 
> test run makes a lot of sense. 

I can put it into run with the tinderbox, no problem with that.

But I think that we should really use both: Patrick's should be better
for I/O so maybe you (or Zac) can come up with a script to just try
unpack and prepare phases for all ebuilds rather than keeping the whole
merge…

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 396 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 December 2009 07:33:33 Diego Elio “Flameeyes” Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 18/12/2009 alle 23.56 -0800, Brian Harring ha scritto:
> > For changes of this sort, abusing the tinderboxes to get a real world
> > test run makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I can put it into run with the tinderbox, no problem with that.

i'll wait until the end of the year to commit it
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Zac Medico]

On 12/19/2009 04:33 AM, Diego Elio “Flameeyes” Pettenò wrote:
> But I think that we should really use both: Patrick's should be better
> for I/O so maybe you (or Zac) can come up with a script to just try
> unpack and prepare phases for all ebuilds rather than keeping the whole
> merge…

A script that calls `ebuild foo.ebuild clean prepare` would probably
do the trick. It might be hard to know if the patches are applying
correctly though, until you try to build it.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

On Saturday 19 December 2009 07:33:33 Diego Elio “Flameeyes” Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 18/12/2009 alle 23.56 -0800, Brian Harring ha scritto:
> > For changes of this sort, abusing the tinderboxes to get a real world
> > test run makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I can put it into run with the tinderbox, no problem with that.

i'm guessing you havent seen any problems then
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Diego E. “Flameeyes” Pettenò]

> i'm guessing you havent seen any problems then

Sorry forgot to notice you, nope the tinderbox completed the run, and
restarted now, no problem at all.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - flameeyes@gmail.com
Free Software developer and consultant
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Maciej Mrozowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

On Friday 18 of December 2009 20:07:47 Mike Frysinger wrote:

> 			if (patch -p${count} ${EPATCH_OPTS} --dry-run -f < 
"${PATCH_TARGET}") >>
> "${STDERR_TARGET}" 2>&1 ; then

Just FYI.
There seems to be a little 'problem' with this, as patch is validated in --
dry-run mode before applying, no .rej files are generated, thus the only 
feedback is hunk # that failed from ${T}/${patchfile}.out.

-- 
regards
MM

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 682 bytes --]

On Wednesday 23 November 2011 18:19:40 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Friday 18 of December 2009 20:07:47 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 			if (patch -p${count} ${EPATCH_OPTS} --dry-run -f <
> "${PATCH_TARGET}") >>
> > "${STDERR_TARGET}" 2>&1 ; then
> 
> There seems to be a little 'problem' with this, as patch is validated in --
> dry-run mode before applying, no .rej files are generated, thus the only
> feedback is hunk # that failed from ${T}/${patchfile}.out.

this is always how epatch has worked.  my rewrite didn't change that.

personally, i've never found .rej useful.  and the .out file tells you exactly 
what hunk failed, so i don't see a problem here.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rewritten epatch

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 252 bytes --]

On 18:45 Wed 23 Nov     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> personally, i've never found .rej useful.

It's nice if you use dev-util/wiggle.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]