> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:22:14AM +0100, Paul Hedderly wrote: > > | > Got the 2.4.19-pre8-ac5 patch, and tried to apply it on a standard > | > 2.4.18 kernel tree. I got A LOT of rejects! > | > > | > Alan's patches don't seem to be up to the usual standard... > | > | You DID apply 2.4.19-pre8 FIRST didn't you... > > Isn't the standard to apply patches to 2.4.18? > > Of course one might say that each appended -name is a patch to be > applied to the previous part of the name, but then, that would mean > -pre9 is a patch to be applied to 2.4.19. :-) > > Actually, what would be nice is a way to document what each patch is > supposed to be applied to. This may have been some of the problems I > had with -ac patches a while back when I first tried some.
I usually check the patch, looking for '/Makefile '. In there they have removed a 'EXTRAVERSION = ...' and added a new one (look for lines starting with + and -). The other thing to do when adding a AC patch, is _FIND_ the patch alan used when he created his patch :) I didn't (at first) find the '-pre8'. I'm not used to look where I eventually find it. Alan used to create his patch on a standard kernel tree.. -- Cocaine toluene iodine 747 pits subway fissionable president Cuba World Trade Center SEAL Team 6 domestic disruption Kennedy FBI Marxist [See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
