I usually have 3 or 4 kernel trees on my system, named with the
Redhatstandard (maybe someone elses, but RedHat uses it) of
'linux-x.x.xxx'. Then I have a link called 'linux' obviously pointing
to the appropriate tree. But more than that, I have added a few more
link when upgrading kernels becuase of _strange_ problems:
Lets say I have kernel 2.1.110, and I am going to apply patches from
there to 2.1.115, I would set the following links:
linux -> linux-2.1.110/
v2.1.110 -> linux
v2.1.111 -> linux
v2.1.112 -> linux
v2.1.113 -> linux
v2.1.114 -> linux
Documenation -> linux/Documentation/
I suppose I may be ridiculed, but I learned from the 2.0 kernels, that
sometimes it wants to find those links. The other thing to do is look
through the patch where it fails, and see what the path is oif the file
it intends to patch, and see if the path is misconstrued, or perhaps the
file is not there. (I had fs corruption once do to a serious brain
malfunction on my part - *oops*).
Hope this helps
js
John Cochran wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I've just recently started using Linux and a recent thread on this
> mailing list focused on the problem of people downloading complete
> kernel sources instead of just the patches to upgrade from earlier
> versions of the kernel. I myself am guilty of this practice.
>
> However, in my defense, I have to point out a problem with the patches...
>
> THEY'RE NOT CORRECT
>
> Yes, I'm claiming that the patches aren't correct. The reason I'm
> claiming that is because whenever I use a patch, I will get FAILURES
> on some files when applying the patch to an unaltered, unmodified
> copy of the kernel source.
>
> The method I'm using to apply the patches is as follows:
>
> 1. uncompress and untar the original unaltered source into a directory.
> 2. cd into said directory
> 3. patch -p2 < patch_file > results
> 4. examine results
>
> *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
>
> 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.
>
> Trust me, I'ld much rather use patches vs. complete tarballs. Downloading
> 250 K is *much* faster than 9 meg, but unless I can apply the patches error
> free, I'll continue to download compete kernels.
>
> John Cochran
>
> -
> 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
-
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