Intel I830M and X 4.2 (again)
Well, I've done a bit of work on my own and come up with a new batch of
questions for round 2. So, here goes.
I tried doing the drop-in of the aforementioned patch[0], but the biggest
problem I ran into was the fact that the "Hunk succeeded" messages weren't
being surpressed on it for some reason. The diff seemed to be in the same
format as every other patch in the debian/patches directory, and the script
that applies them (debian/script/apply.patches if memory serves) seemed pretty
patch agnostic, so I didn't know what was going on.
So, like any hacker who wants something to work, I kludged a fix. I untarred
the upstream tarball (is this pristine, from the xf-4_2_0 CVS branch?),
applied the patch manually, and re-tarred the tarball. Thankfully for my
kludge (though this may be a policy issue, or it may not since it allows
things like what I just mentioned to be greatly simplified), no md5sum or
other integrity checking is performed on the tarball itself other than "as
long as it untars and builds, it's okay." So, after that, the
dpkg-buildpackage (and, for reference, I did "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc
-b" as it seemed to suit my needs best) went off without a hitch, and I had
a nice set of debs I could now install.
So, after a quick dpkg-scanpackages on my local repository, and a quick stop
into aptitude to upgrade the packages (and affirm that my version number
change took effect so that the normal packages in main wouldn't clobber my
custom ones), I had them installed. Everything went fine there as well. In
fact, the whole thing works just as I had wanted. So, can I propose that we
include this patch as well? Or at least forward it upstream for them to
scrutinize/test?
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: