a few .diff patches for your interest (some examples of DIFF)

as you may notice, Sonic Retro admins say we do not need source patching, but here I will prove that not to be true with some very useful patches below:


Sonic1 DRX Text -> Sonic1 Hivebrain 2005 ASW - (s1drx-hivebrain.patch)


Sonic1 Hivebrain 2005 snasm68k -> Sonic1 Hivebrain 2005 ASW - (s1hive-asw.patch)


Sonic1 Hivebrain 2005 snasm68k -> Sonic1 Hivebrain 2005 ASW - (s1hive-asm68k_to_asw.patch)


later I will post an ASL patch in here.


you need a tool like winmerge or gnu patch to use these patches and a valid sonic1 disassembly (not the hivebrain as one though).


gnu patch needs --binary -a to work on Windows.

s1patches2009.zip

 

I'm curious; what are the advantages of these patches over just getting the ASW version? Does it allow you to edit the original and then convert it to ASW or something?

 

If the original asm file exists, it will be patched and converted to the latest, only opcodes that do not exist in the previous assembly that you used in the current will have to be manually edited. Thus it would work with a hacked version as well as a normal one.


It is a differences between folders file and nothing more, that is all a DIFF really is. So yes, it will convert your sonic1 hack to the asw version. I am not sure about the drx version one though. But since all the hivebrain variants call s1.asm, sonic1.asm, that would allow all the hivebrain ones to be updated to the asw version and will even remove the old build tools and add the current ones. Also will make changes in the code (incbin into binclude) for an example.


A reject file is for something that the patching utility cannot apply because it cannot find the code. It needs to be manually merged, but on the other hand, if you did the hack in a standard kind of way that the community approves of, you shouldnt get any of those. These patches are the answer to the indirect question "Can I update my disassembly after I edited it?" Yes you can, ask gerbilsoft or mustapha if you need to. They can give a better answer than I can.

 

Uh, what? To my knowledge we have said no such thing; if you're talking about Xkeeper deleting your articles, he's just being ancy. Don't take it as a representation of the entire staff's beliefs.

 

Thanks Tweaker, as a matter of fact, as we speak, I am working on the sonic2 series of patches, a hack, as well as a possible sonic1 disassembly 2009 that will be the sonic1 equivilient to the 2007 disassembly of sonic2, as well as some updates on KENS and a possible multiplatform clone of TSDC that is GUI based. I have a soned clone for linux on the drawing boards as well as a libymx and a libsonicrom. Those last two will be up on sourceforge long before the open souce soned clone will. I will announce each of these with a new topic.


I am glad that the it wasn't the whole community that is like that. I just about gave up on sonic retro and was going to make these things listed not allowed on retro at all. I guess I must only deny them to Xkeeper then. I already have made a patch that inserts linux build tools and removed win32 ones on disassembly 2007, btw and soon will make a nenesis to 2007 patch.


The point is that I feel that our problem is mostly with conventions here. No standard way to keep everyone up to standard exists. Thus, we really badly need a system to update disassemblies by another means than simply just downloading a new one and starting all over again. That is where DIFF becomes a savior. sure, you may want to keep your hacks to yourselves, but believing that we don't need source patching, is simply just arrogance. That is how open source projects keep up to date. It also allows others to test prototypes too. The point of these examples above is just THAT. If the disassemblies had DIFFs for them, then we would be able to update them on the fly quickly without compromising the hacks we are working on. How else do you get tuxonice to work on a newer kernel version than supported? GNU Patch is how we Linux freaks do it.


As for Xkeeper, that was way out of hand. I just wanted first to tell others what these programs can do. He takes down the man page I put 76% up, so I decide to put up a review with links for the future manual pages for diffutils and gnu patch so that others could learn how to use these tools. We do not want just the linux freaks like me and mustapha knowing how to use these, do we? That is my intent behind the articles.


Unless others had a win32 port of the UNIX "man" program, it would be pretty hard for them to get help with those things. I had given up on retro so badly that I intended to start up a page on digibase for open source tools in sonic hacking and the submit system expecting .patch files or .zip, or .patch.gz or .patch.bz2 files. and .png images.

 

Um, you do know that there is a Sonic 1 disassembly being worked on right now, it's available on the Sonic Retro SVN server. If you mean the equivalent of the S2 disassembly, what exactly would you be trying to do? The S1 SVN disasm already has equates and macros.

 

I like the sounds of that.

http://www.linuxmanpages.com/