Zitat - Anselm R Garbe * Sa Dez 13 2008 um 17:54 - > 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
I see, great thanks henry
