On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 05:44:17PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 16:08, Libertas wrote:
> > On 11/27/2014 07:38 AM, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> >> I have also learned to use the -C flag to patch...
> >
> > Have we ever considered changing the suggested shell commands in the
> > p
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 16:08, Libertas wrote:
> On 11/27/2014 07:38 AM, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
>> I have also learned to use the -C flag to patch...
>
> Have we ever considered changing the suggested shell commands in the
> patches to ensure that the patch will apply cleanly before trying? We
> co
On 11/27/2014 07:38 AM, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> I have also learned to use the -C flag to patch...
Have we ever considered changing the suggested shell commands in the
patches to ensure that the patch will apply cleanly before trying? We
could wrap the actual patch command an if-block with a 'patc
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:45:26AM -0500, trondd wrote:
> I had noticed the same thing. The src tarball on the CD is different from
> the tarball on the mirrors. I had taken a quick look and it was just
> whitespace differences that I saw.
>
> Tim.
I have investigated more now, and it sure seem
I had noticed the same thing. The src tarball on the CD is different from
the tarball on the mirrors. I had taken a quick look and it was just
whitespace differences that I saw.
Tim.
Hi.
I applied patch 009_httpd.patch extracted from a downloaded 5.6.tar.gz
according to inline instructions on a source tree from the 5.6 release CD,
and approximately 6 hunks in 3 files were rejected.
This was late last evening and I will try again any day to produce proper
logs and double check
6 matches
Mail list logo
