>> Why mess around with any patches at all? Or am I not getting the>> drift of your messages?>>If you don't have broadband or don't want to contribute to stressing the>servers, downloading kernel patches can be an attractive option. Instead>of dowloading 40MB you only download a few kB.The best I can get reliably is 40Kbps. (Like some couldn't understand my multiple session problem when 1SBU>25min!) And this may not have been such a great idea because rather than a few KB those patches were around 4MB! Still something between 15-20MB is less than 40MB.>Now, my understanding is that in order to upgrade to linux-2.6.12, you>must apply patch-2.6.12 to 2.6.11, not to 2.6.11.12. That would explain>Paul's problem.I had hopes that either (1) someone would know the whereabouts of a 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.12 patch file, or (2) my attempt with patch-2.6.12 would report a lot of previously applied patches, and a few new patches applied, i.e. bring me back to a minor patch level, without a lot of questionable errors.
I guess one approach might be to get all the patch-2.6.11.* files and unapply them to get back to 2.6.11, then go forward with 2.6.12, et al. But it might be more dependable to bite the bullet and try the 40MB download at 40Kbps. (But now I know to keep the 2.6.17 tarball even after I patch it!) No 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.12 patches on the LFS site, eh? Darn! Paul Rogers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ http://www.geocities.com/paulgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
