Re: kernel upgrade options
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, John wrote:
This may be a dumb question but are you linking your "kernel-sources-2.2.xx"
directory to "linux"? The kernel patch system expects a directory of "./linux".
> on 05 Nov 99, Matthew Gregan wrote...
>
> >
> >On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 06:07:31PM +0000, John wrote:
> >
> >> I've obtained patches 2 to 5 but now have a problem in applying them.
> >> My /usr/src had only 'kernel-sources-2.2.1' (and the .tar.gz source which
> >> I'm leaving there for the time being) until I moved 'patch-2.2.xx' from the
> >> download site.
> >> When I do 'zcat patch2.gz | patch -p0' I get:-
> >
> >Cd into your kernel source dir, and use '-p1' instead.
> >
> I couldn't get this to work. My patches were in /usr/src and I got 'no such
> file or directory', so I moved them into the kernel source dir. and did -p0
> thinking that should be right. No luck, so I did -p1 - there was action, but
> only 33 times 'Hunk xx failed at xxxx' and quite a few 'succeeded' at
> xxxx with fuzz 1 or 2 and a final line 'patch: **** malformed patch at line
> 2121: s'.
>
> After looking at the .rej's, which were enlightening but not helpful with
> the problem, and not finding anything else to guide me, I tried to apply
> patch 3 expecting some message indicating it was out of order. It, in
> fact, worked partially and said '2 out of 11 hunks failed'. Emboldened,
> I did patch 4 ( '1 out of 2 failed') and then 5 which seemed OK except
> for a final 'malformed patch at line 146'.
>
> There was no real result from the exercise other than a lot of new
> knowledge. My 2.2.1 came from a Debian Official CD and the patches
> from ftp.kernel.org (no apparent problem with the download), so I
> presume my difficulty lies elsewhere.
>
> >> I discover the quoted lines are the first three text lines of the patch,
> >> and the fourth is I presume machine instructions viz,
> >> @@-1403,6 +1403,13@@
> >
> >These numbers are actually line numbers - it's telling patch the general
> >location of where to look in the file. I think the format is like this:
> >
> >- look at line 1403
> >- 6 lines are to be removed
> >- look at the new line 1403
> >- 13 lines are to be added
> >
> >Someone please correct me if I messed that up. :-)
> >
> Thank you - I've had a look, and think I can see what is being done.
> I don't understand the technicalities but can what is being changed.
>
> >> Can anyone help - I feel I understand what is required generally,=20
> >> but not specifically. Is it that I don't have a directory called
> >> Linux in /usr/src? (everything I read seems to assume I have)
> >> I don't mind messing-up things and having to reinstall, but it
> >> wouldn't help I'd still not be able to apply patches.=20
> >
> >You could rename your kernel-source-2.2.1 to whatever the patch is
> >expecting and run patch again with the arguments you used, but you are
> >better off to cd into the the dir and use '-p1', since everybody seems
> >to have different names for their top level directory. :-)
> >
> My problem here is that I do not know what the patch is expecting. If
> I renamed to 'Linux-2.2.1' would it affect other things, maybe creating
> more difficulties?
>
> Another mystery to me arises from the fact that the command lines
> suggested in all the literature I've seem do not appear to say what
> is to be patched. Yet, according to O'Reilly's Linux in a Nutshell it's
> based on 'patch [options] [original [patchfile]].
>
> Any suggestions where I should stumble next? Will the patches still be
> OK after what I've tried so far. My installation is appears undamaged
> - seems indestructible.
>
> Grateful for any help. I could, despite the online time involved,
> download 2.2.13 but would learn nothing further here and would
> have to face the problem later 2.4 if I want to keep up to date.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
>
+---------------------------------------------+
| Mike Nachlinger BAC Travel Director |
| (408) 446-9914 mnach@tassajara-group.com |
+---------------------------------------------+
Reply to: