On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 20:28 -0400, R L wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2005 9:50 AM, Alexander Dalloz <ad+lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am So, den 10.04.2005 schrieb Pete um 8:13:
> >
> > > Then: make mrproper; make xconfig; make dep; make
> > > clean; make bzImage install modules modules_install.
> > > Have I forgotten anything? Next time around, just
> > > patch that one.
> >
> > Please be aware that this part changed with kernel 2.6. It is documented
> > in the kernel source.
> >
> > Alexander
> >
>
>
> I don't understand why you can't just patch in progression. I did
> that with the slackware 2.6 kernel. Is Fedora just different? And
> BTW, using patch -R didn't work for me. I had to download the tar.gz
> and do it from there, which isn't that big of a deal; I just don't
> see why you cant patch your kernel with patch -E -p1 < patchfile.
>
You can IIF the patchfile is created for the differences between your
current patch level and the new level.
for example patchfile.1 is created for the patch from version 2.1 to 2.2
patchfile.2 is created for the patch from version 2.2 to 2.3
patchfile.3 is created for the patch from version 2.1 to 2.3
If your system is at version 2.1 then there are 2 paths to go from 2.1
to 2.3
2.1 --> patchfile.1 --> patchfile.2 --> 2.3
2.1 --> patchfile.3 --> 2.3
The cumulative sum of the changes in .1 and .2 equal the sum of the
changes in .3. In the example above it is impossible to go from 2.2 to
2.3 unless you use the patchfile.2 or you remove the effects of
patchfile.1 then apply patchfile.3.
ANY other path will usually fail.
Thus, it depends on the patchfile(s) being used on how you get from one
place to the other.
