Richard Melville wrote:
/ Thanks Dave. Do you mean that if the Hunks aren't listed then they
/>/ have succeeded? In addition, an offset of 103 lines isn't *off by a
/>/ line or so.* Is this still acceptable?/
Yep. :) If the hunks aren't listed, they've succeeded. :) And the offset
of 1
> Thanks Dave. Do you mean that if the Hunks aren't listed then they
> have succeeded? In addition, an offset of 103 lines isn't *off by a
> line or so.* Is this still acceptable?
Yep. :) If the hunks aren't listed, they've succeeded. :) And the offset
of 103 lines is fine... It just means
Richard Melville wrote these words on 12/09/05 09:30 CST:
> Thanks Dave. Do you mean that if the Hunks aren't listed then they
> have succeeded? In addition, an offset of 103 lines isn't *off by a
> line or so.*
> Is this still acceptable?
Yes. Even though it's ugly and there is fuzz along wit
On 12/9/05, Richard Melville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > />/ and I've just applied the expect-5.43.0-spawn-1.patch. I received
> > />/ the following output:- />/ />/ patching file exp_chan.c
> > />/ Hunk #1 succeeded at 622 (offset 103 lines)
[...]
> Thanks Dave. Do you mean that if the Hunk
Richard Melville wrote:
/Hi
/>/ />/ I'd welcome some advice. I'm up to chapter 5.9.1 in the 6.1
LFS book
/>/ and I've just applied the expect-5.43.0-spawn-1.patch. I received
/>/ the following output:- />/ />/ patching file exp_chan.c
/>/ Hunk #1 succeeded at 622 (offset 103 lines)
/>/ pat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd welcome some advice. I'm up to chapter 5.9.1 in the 6.1 LFS book
> and I've just applied the expect-5.43.0-spawn-1.patch. I received
> the following output:-
>
> patching file exp_chan.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 622 (offset 103 lines)
> patching file exp_com
