On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 11:25:27 +0530, harish badrinath wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Guillem Jover <[email protected]> wrote: > > The proposed patch also fixes the endian issues as stated on the bug > > report.
> The patch attached by Samuel Thibault is a diff of a diff. > The unmodified file is a file named debian/patches/01-conglomeration.patch. That the patched file is a patch itself does not really matter, you just need to apply the patch and that should do the right thing, as once inside the extracted source package: «patch -p0 <patch». > I have worked on essentially breaking down the 01-conglomeration patch > into manageable chunks. > > The only difference i see between the patch attached and the actual > patch 01-conglomeration.patch is given in my previous mail. > > After applying the diff detailed in my previous mail, gpart does not > build because, a file in the source named gm_ntfs.h cannot find > asm/byteorder.h (I could not find it too, that may be because i have a > lot to learn). Yes as mentioned, the diff you posted is only a part of the needed changes that Samuel provided to make it build. The part that I don't understand though is that the current source package in Debian unstable is 0.1h-11, which contains the 01-conglomeration.patch file Samuel patched against, you say you are splitting that into smaller chunks (as the new maintainer perhaps?), so then I pressume you should have moved the <asm/byteorder.h> chunks to another patch, which should be modified instead. If you have taken over as the new maintainer the current Vcs-Git field is not working, so a new URL would be nice to understand what's your actual issue. Otherwise applying Samuel's patch first, and then splitting 01-conglomeration.patch would be the wiser thing to do. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
