How about using the script, patch-kernel?
> *most* of the files are patched correctly. However, I average about 2 to
> 3 files per kernel version that fail. If any of you are interested, try to
> patch
>
> 2.0.34 -> 2.0.35 Has FAILURES
> 2.1.109 -> 2.1.110 Has FAILURES
> 2.1.110 -> 2.1.111 Has FAILURES
> 2.1.111 -> 2.1.112 Has FAILURES
> 2.1.112 -> 2.1.113 Has FAILURES
> 2.1.113 -> 2.1.114 Only source that patched without failures.
> 2.1.114 -> 2.1.115 Has FAILURES
I have no experience with the dev-kernels, but all the trouble I ever had
with patching was with my SB config files.
After a "make distclean" and then a patch it did work.
Patching from 2.0.34 to 2.0.35 only posed a problem for me because the
patch I downloaded was corrupt, I downloaded it again and it worked.
I'd think that if the patches were incorrect we'd get a hell of a lot more
complaints on the list.
> Now, I'm willing to admit that I might be doing something wrong. However,
> if you expect to get the average user to trust using patches to upgrade
> their kernel, then it is imperative that the patches apply completely and
> without any errors when applied over an unaltered version of the source.
Try the patch-kernel script in /usr/src/linux/scripts/
Yeep
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html