On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 12:24:46PM -0600, Michael Blood wrote: [ try responding after the quoted material so we know what you're talking about ... jeopardy style quoting sucks ] > > 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 [ snip ] > 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? No, this is a context diff (meaning additional lines have been included to provide context, or navigation hints). The stuff below the asterisks, lines 727 through 730 are from the original file. The patch (below the dashes) expected these lines to start at 735 instead. It looks to me like you can just add the lines + + dpt_i2o.o: dpti.c + $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c dpti.c -o dpt_i2o.o beginning at line 737 (without the '+ ' of course). Note that you must have a tab char before the "$(CC) ..." line or make will be pissed. When you have some time, read the manpages for diff and patch. It's hard going at first but you will be glad you learned it :) Cheers, -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:nnorman@micromuse.com | -- Patton
Attachment:
pgpUeI7rj3vCU.pgp
Description: PGP signature