On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:53:25PM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:30:43PM -0600, lee wrote: > > > I believe that the patch-2.6.29.x applies against the tree of 2.6.29, > > > which is why some hunks would already be present if you try to apply > > > it against 2.6.29.4. > > > > > > The easiest solution is to get the full 2.6.29.5 tree, or get the > > > 2.6.29 tarball and then apply this patch. Someone correct me if I am > > > wrong. > > > > My understanding is that patch-2.6.29.5 is supposed to patch (the full > > source tree of) 2.6.29.4 to kernel version 2.6.29.5, the idea being > > that it saves you from having to download the current full source > > tree. Isn't that so? If I need to download the full source again, I'd > > download 2.6.30 and won't need to patch anything. > > > > If you're right and some things that would be patched are already > > present in their patched form, why isn't there an option to just skip > > the parts that are already present and don't need to be patched? > > Look at the "alternatives to patch" section here. Specifically, the > interdiff part: > > http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/applying-patches.txt > > That should handle your problem.
Thanks, I've seen that and it told me what the error message I got can mean, but it doesn't solve the problem: " 157 If you get "Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]" 158 then patch detected that the change contained in the patch seems to have 159 already been made. 160 If you actually did apply this patch previously and you just re-applied it 161 in error, then just say [n]o and abort this patch. If you applied this patch 162 previously and actually intended to revert it, but forgot to specify -R, 163 then you can say [y]es here to make patch revert it for you. 164 This can also happen if the creator of the patch reversed the source and 165 destination directories when creating the patch, and in that case reverting 166 the patch will in fact apply it. " So am I to assume that the creator of the patch reversed the directories and that the patch is useless to me? It's very well possible, but it doesn't seem likely. " 189 You can use the `interdiff' program (http://cyberelk.net/tim/patchutils/) to 190 generate a patch representing the differences between two patches and then 191 apply the result. " Generating a patch representing the differences between two patches is not at all what I'm trying to do. I'm not sure if I should try one of the other alternatives. That the default way of applying the patch yields unexpected results may indicate that there is something wrong with either the patch or the source tree to be patched. In that case, it is not possible to achieve the desired results simply by using a different program to operate on the very same files unless the desired results would be generated by chance. That the desired results would be generated by chance seems even more unlikely than the creator of the patch having confused the directories. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
