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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
