2008/12/13 henry atting <nspm...@literaturlatenight.de>: >> 2008/12/13 henry atting <nspm...@literaturlatenight.de>: >> The tagging approach didn't change between 5.2 and 5.4, so I assume >> it's just a matter of making the 5.2 patch applying to the 5.4 >> codebase. > > Mmh, I am not very familiar with patching, I did it this way: > > ,---- > | do! patch -p1 < dwm-5.2-arrownav.diff > | missing header for unified diff at line 3 of patch > | can't find file to patch at input line 3 > | Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? > | The text leading up to this was: > | -------------------------- > | |--- config.def.h Tue Sep 9 15:46:17 2008 > | |+++ config.def.h Tue Nov 18 19:26:53 2008 > | -------------------------- > | File to patch: config.def.h > | patching file config.def.h > | Hunk #1 succeeded at 62 (offset 1 line). > | missing header for unified diff at line 14 of patch > | can't find file to patch at input line 14 > | Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? > | The text leading up to this was: > | -------------------------- > | |--- dwm.c Tue Sep 9 15:46:17 2008 > | |+++ dwm.c Tue Nov 18 19:31:55 2008 > | -------------------------- > | File to patch: dwm.c > | patching file dwm.c > | Hunk #1 succeeded at 197 (offset -1 lines). > | Hunk #2 FAILED at 1668. > | 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file dwm.c.rej > `----
Well as I said, you will need to patch it manually, since the lines have changed and the heuristic approach supported by patch(1) isn't succeeding either. Kind regards, --Anselm
