Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:31:51 +0200 (CEST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: 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'RE NOT CORRECT
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 documentation.
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 :-)
Rik. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |