RE: Adaptec Raid

["Michael Blood" <Michael@CustomDB.net>]

That makes sense but didn't want to try it until I knew for sure.
 I noticed that on the section below 727,730 there are not + signs.
 Does that mean that there is no reason for that entry to be there?
 Also the entry below 727,730 is exactly the same as the entry below
735,741.
 Could the fact that they are identical be the reason it is there and there
is no actual purpose to the 727,730 entry?

Thanks Michael Blood

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike McGuire [mailto:mjm19@po.cwru.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:24 AM
To: Michael Blood
Cc: Mike McGuire; debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Adaptec Raid


>
> So most of the patch was applied except for "Hunk #2" which failed at 735.
> the file Makefile.rej looks like the following.
>
> >michael@www:~/src/linux$ more drivers/scsi/Makefile.rej
> >***************
> >*** 727,730 ****
> >
> >  sd_mod.o: sd.o sd_ioctl.o
> >        $(LD) $(LD_RFLAG) -r -o $@ sd.o sd_ioctl.o
> >
> >--- 735,741 ----
>
> >  sd_mod.o: sd.o sd_ioctl.o
> >        $(LD) $(LD_RFLAG) -r -o $@ sd.o sd_ioctl.o
> >+
> >+ dpt_i2o.o: dpti.c
> >+       $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c dpti.c -o dpt_i2o.o
>
>
> How can I get these lines in the correct place in the Makefile?  should I
> insert them manually at the line positions 727-730 and 735-741?  Would
this
> be a problem with the version of kernel(2.2.14) that I am patching?
>

Hrm. What happened was patch tried to add the lines starting with +,
but apparently didn't find the lines above to know where to put it.
You can look at the file (drivers/scsi/Makefile) for lines similar to
those, and put the added lines following those. Probably, there's been
some small change and the lines don't appear exactly as the patch
expects them to.

HTH,
Mike McGuire