[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.2.18 almost...
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:32:56 -0500, 
Michael Rothwell <> wrote:
>Alan Cox wrote:
>> The patch I intend to be 2.2.18 is out as 2.2.18pre26 in the usual place.
>> I'll move it over tomorrow if nobody reports any horrors, missing files etc
>Fresh 2.2.17, "patch -p1 < /pre-patch-2.2.18-26"
>can't find file to patch at input line 38909
>Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
>The text leading up to this was:
>|diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude
>v2.2.17/arch/i386/ linux/arch/i386/
>|--- v2.2.17/arch/i386/ Wed May 3 21:22:13 2000
>|+++ linux/arch/i386/ Sat Dec 9 21:23:21 2000

Ignore that bit of the patch. arch/i386/ is generated from
arch/i386/ and the latter is correctly patched. The patch
for arch/i386/ should not have been generated.

<rant size="small">
There are a lot of unnecessary inconsistencies between architectures.
Some archs generate from, some from, some do not generate, it is shipped in the
tarball. The inconsistencies make it difficult to distinguish between
files that are generated (not shipped, ignore for patching) and master
files (shipped in tar ball, check for patches).

There is a similar problem with oops text. Each architecture needs an
oops report but each one prints it differently.

I implore architecture maintainers to adopt a common approach to
generated files, oops reports etc. Remember that each arch needs to be
part of the common tar ball and has to operate with a single set of
make and other user space tools.

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 12:51    [W:0.103 / U:1.340 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site