On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, John wrote: This may be a dumb question but are you linking your "kernel-sources-2.2.xx" directory to "linux"? The kernel patch system expects a directory of "./linux".
> on 05 Nov 99, Matthew Gregan wrote... > > > > >On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 06:07:31PM +0000, John wrote: > > > >> I've obtained patches 2 to 5 but now have a problem in applying them. > >> My /usr/src had only 'kernel-sources-2.2.1' (and the .tar.gz source which > >> I'm leaving there for the time being) until I moved 'patch-2.2.xx' from the > >> download site. > >> When I do 'zcat patch2.gz | patch -p0' I get:- > > > >Cd into your kernel source dir, and use '-p1' instead. > > > I couldn't get this to work. My patches were in /usr/src and I got 'no such > file or directory', so I moved them into the kernel source dir. and did -p0 > thinking that should be right. No luck, so I did -p1 - there was action, but > only 33 times 'Hunk xx failed at xxxx' and quite a few 'succeeded' at > xxxx with fuzz 1 or 2 and a final line 'patch: **** malformed patch at line > 2121: s'. > > After looking at the .rej's, which were enlightening but not helpful with > the problem, and not finding anything else to guide me, I tried to apply > patch 3 expecting some message indicating it was out of order. It, in > fact, worked partially and said '2 out of 11 hunks failed'. Emboldened, > I did patch 4 ( '1 out of 2 failed') and then 5 which seemed OK except > for a final 'malformed patch at line 146'. > > There was no real result from the exercise other than a lot of new > knowledge. My 2.2.1 came from a Debian Official CD and the patches > from ftp.kernel.org (no apparent problem with the download), so I > presume my difficulty lies elsewhere. > > >> I discover the quoted lines are the first three text lines of the patch, > >> and the fourth is I presume machine instructions viz, > >> @@-1403,6 +1403,13@@ > > > >These numbers are actually line numbers - it's telling patch the general > >location of where to look in the file. I think the format is like this: > > > >- look at line 1403 > >- 6 lines are to be removed > >- look at the new line 1403 > >- 13 lines are to be added > > > >Someone please correct me if I messed that up. :-) > > > Thank you - I've had a look, and think I can see what is being done. > I don't understand the technicalities but can what is being changed. > > >> Can anyone help - I feel I understand what is required generally,=20 > >> but not specifically. Is it that I don't have a directory called > >> Linux in /usr/src? (everything I read seems to assume I have) > >> I don't mind messing-up things and having to reinstall, but it > >> wouldn't help I'd still not be able to apply patches.=20 > > > >You could rename your kernel-source-2.2.1 to whatever the patch is > >expecting and run patch again with the arguments you used, but you are > >better off to cd into the the dir and use '-p1', since everybody seems > >to have different names for their top level directory. :-) > > > My problem here is that I do not know what the patch is expecting. If > I renamed to 'Linux-2.2.1' would it affect other things, maybe creating > more difficulties? > > Another mystery to me arises from the fact that the command lines > suggested in all the literature I've seem do not appear to say what > is to be patched. Yet, according to O'Reilly's Linux in a Nutshell it's > based on 'patch [options] [original [patchfile]]. > > Any suggestions where I should stumble next? Will the patches still be > OK after what I've tried so far. My installation is appears undamaged > - seems indestructible. > > Grateful for any help. I could, despite the online time involved, > download 2.2.13 but would learn nothing further here and would > have to face the problem later 2.4 if I want to keep up to date. > > Regards. > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > > +---------------------------------------------+ | Mike Nachlinger BAC Travel Director | | (408) 446-9914 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +---------------------------------------------+
