Re: Alan Cox patches [probably stupid question]
On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 02:07:02PM -0800, Jim McCloskey wrote:
>
> I want/need to compile one of the Alan Cox variants of the 2.4.20
> kernel (it apparently has better support for the particular Asus
> motherboard that I have). I've routinely hand-compiled kernels for
> some years, but I've never tried any of the non-standard kernel
> branches before.
>
> I downloaded the 2.4.20 source from ftp.debian.org, uncompressed it,
> un-tarred it. Then I downloaded patch-2.4.20-pre10-ac2 from the same
> site, and tried:
Not sure, but patch-2.4.20-pre10-ac2 looks to be a patch to
2.4.20-pre10, not 2.4.20.
Frank
>
> patch -p1 < patch-2.4.20-pre10-ac2
>
> at the top of the /usr/src/linux-2.4.20/ tree.
>
> It gets a certain distance and then:
>
> patching file arch/alpha/kernel/process.c
> patching file arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c
> patching file arch/alpha/mm/fault.c
> patching file arch/arm/config.in
> patching file arch/arm/mm/fault-common.c
> patching file arch/cris/drivers/ide.c
> patching file arch/i386/config.in
> patching file arch/i386/defconfig
> patching file arch/i386/kernel/apic.c
> Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n
> Apply anyway? [n] y
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 29.
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 262 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 304.
> 2 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/i386/kernel/apic.c.rej
> patching file arch/i386/kernel/apm.c
> patching file arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c
> Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
>
> At that point, no matter what options I select, I end up with `Hunk
> FAILED' messages. The process repeats.
>
> I'm sure I'm making some really basic mistake here. Could someone
> kindly point me in a useful direction? Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: