[lkml]   [1998]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Patches vs complete tarballs....
On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, John Cochran wrote:

> However, in my defense, I have to point out a problem with the patches...

They are.

> The method I'm using to apply the patches is as follows:
> 1. uncompress and untar the original unaltered source into a directory.
> 2. cd into said directory
> 3. patch -p2 < patch_file > results

Use patch -p1; the file after the +++ is the filename that
will always succeed, the --- filename has a dir extra and
might not always work (because it might not exist yet as
the file concerned is a new file).

Alternatively, use the script /usr/src/linux/scripts/patch-kernel,
which will automatically upgrade your kernel for you :-)

> 4. examine results
> Now, I'm willing to admit that I might be doing something wrong. However,
> if you expect to get the average user to trust using patches to upgrade
> their kernel, then it is imperative that the patches apply completely and
> without any errors when applied over an unaltered version of the source.

The biggest problem with average users is that they don't read the

Maybe it's time for a Documentation/UPGRADE file explaining why
people should use patches, how they can (safely) use them and
that they should keep their sources clean before patching stuff :-)

| Linux memory management tour guide. |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.059 / U:2.060 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site