Might be better to read and comprehend ``man patch'' before assuming limitations on the scope of patch's reach.
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf > Of Uwe Dippel > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 11:23 AM > To: misc@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade > base47, on i386 and amd64 > > Jacob Meuser <jakemsr <at> sdf.lonestar.org> writes: > > > oh good grief. you had a dirty /usr/obj. > > > > just look at the pfctl snippet of the log you posted. do you see > pfctl > > being built? do you see pfctl being installed from /usr/obj? > > Oh, yes. So the blame is on my side, I guess. Mea culpa maxima! > I didn't know that the object directories need to be cleaned manually. > Until > yesterday, I would have taken a bet that the object directories lie > within the > source trees (/usr/xenocaram /usr/src), and be cleaned when cleaning > the > sources. Now I am aware that I need to know the location of the object > directories and clean them manually. > I was totally unaware that, in case of a patch, the installer would > take the > next best file of the correct name from there; irrespective of the > underlying > version. > Though I feel in good company. I guess, a great number of people on > this list > were in a similar situation. Knowing the 'social contract' of OpenBSD, > I only > have to blame myself for ignorance. > Still, may I suggest, that the next Upgrade Guide gets an extra line, > with a > remark pointing out the existence of /usr/obj; and the suggestion to > clean it? > Also, with respect to the 'errata', the patches, they describe in > detail what > needs to be done. Maybe here, it could as well be suggested, that > before > applying the first patch of a new version of OpenBSD, /usr/obj should > be > cleaned, or be verified to be clean? > > Thanks for the various people who helped me patiently at analysing this > problem > to the very end! > > Uwe
