xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OT] Compiling today's Samba for Debian fails with rejected patch

To: Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OT] Compiling today's Samba for Debian fails with rejected patch
From: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:57:16 -0800
In-reply-to: <E17I9fl-0007sR-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from rabe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 05:04:33PM +0200
Mail-copies-to: nobody
Mail-followup-to: Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E17I9fl-0007sR-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 05:04:33PM +0200, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> # debian/rules binary
> [...]
> patching file `source/include/proto.h'
> Hunk #6 FAILED at 1079.
> Hunk #7 succeeded at 1522 (offset 1 line).
> Hunk #9 succeeded at 2441 (offset 4 lines).
> Hunk #11 succeeded at 2537 (offset 4 lines).
> Hunk #13 succeeded at 4759 (offset 17 lines).
> 1 out of 14 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to source/include/proto.h.rej
> 
> 
> Is the Debian stuff possibly not up-to-date?

the debian packaging scripts are applying a set of patches, these
patches are obviously against the released version (whatever they are
shipping right now) and not random CVS snapshots.  

> I'd do the patch manually, but it seems far too much work, and I'm not sure 
> whether I understand what the patch is trying to change.

just resolve the .rej files.

> Thanks for any insights,

you would be better off asking on debian-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on how
to do this.

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgphHSiYxA7Ru.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>