our patch to look a little more like NetBSD's, and has the nice characteristic
that the object code is exactly the same after the change as before it (even in
patch.c and pch.c, which have pesky 'assert' statements in them).
Reviewed by: /sbin/md5 on i386, alpha, sparc64
MFC after: 3 days
Previously, using -S/--skip, -f/--force, or -t/--batch to skip a patch in
a patchset still registers a failure which causes patch to return a
non-zero exit code. This is particularly undesirable with regards to
ports as there is no way to ignore the non-zero code. (Luckily, we don't
currently have any ports that make use of any of these options.)
The PR (yes, my own) is slightly incorrect: It states that -f does indeed
properly skip patches. It does, but it still sets the failure flag causing
patch to return non-zero.
PR: 19638
Submitted by: kbyanc@posi.net
controlling terminal is closed. Now the function ask() will return 1 when th
input is known to come from a file or terminal, or it will return 0 when ther
was a read error.
Modified the question "Skip patch?" so that on an error from ask it will skip
the patch instead of looping.
Closes PR#777
2.2 candidate
