On Jul 22, 4:09 pm, Bob Proulx <b...@proulx.com> wrote: > Alex Reed wrote: > > At least one "hunk" fails on every patch file. What am I doing wrong? > > Hmm... Works for me. Here is a trace of the important bits. > > $ wgetftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-4.0.tar.gz > $ wgetftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-4.0.tar.gz.sig > > $ wgetftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-4.0-patches/bash40-001 > $ wgetftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-4.0-patches/bash40-001.sig > > $ gpg bash-4.0.tar.gz.sig > gpg: Signature made Mon 09 Mar 2009 08:32:40 AM MDT using DSA key ID > 64EA74AB > gpg: Good signature from "Chet Ramey <c...@cwru.edu>" > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the > owner. > Primary key fingerprint: 7C01 35FB 088A AF6C 66C6 50B9 BB58 69F0 64EA 74AB > > $ gpg bash40-001.sig > gpg: Signature made Mon 09 Mar 2009 08:32:40 AM MDT using DSA key ID > 64EA74AB > gpg: Good signature from "Chet Ramey <c...@cwru.edu>" > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the > owner. > Primary key fingerprint: 7C01 35FB 088A AF6C 66C6 50B9 BB58 69F0 64EA 74AB > > The key point there with a good signature we know that the patches are > not corrupted. The signature step would detect this. The key is the > same key used on all of the patches. The patches match those posted > to the mailing list. Those patches probably came from Chet. :-) > > $ tar xzf bash-4.0.tar.gz > $ cd bash-4.0 > $ patch -p0 < ../bash40-001 > patching file parse.y > patching file patchlevel.h > > $ patch --version > patch 2.5.9 > > Works for me. > > $ sha1sum bash40-001 bash-4.0.tar.gz > dc47d547bec938afcd7b382816fec84077f3412f bash40-001 > 2bbed30879f9f424c091a846a48111c27d0b2370 bash-4.0.tar.gz > > I would check that your downloaded patch files are not corrupted for > some reason. I would check that line endings are respected and for > similar things that might confuse things. I am not familiar with > using lynx as a downloader although I am sure it is fine for the > task. But at a guess I would think that would be the place to start > to look for problems. > > Bob
You make a good point in the last paragraph - lynx "should" work (but doesn't). Considering I was having to specify a maximum line-length, lynx (I suppose) was still botching the files. After using wget in place of lynx (with the appropriate proxy flag changes) everything patched a-okay. Thanks! -Alex
