[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:0.021 / U:68.576 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site