home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!gatech!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!noc.msc.net!uc.msc.edu!raistlin!shamash!runyon.cim.cdc.com!pbd
- From: pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Subject: Re: [386bsd] problem with new patchkit?
- Message-ID: <51684@shamash.cdc.com>
- Date: 27 Jan 93 22:23:11 GMT
- References: <1993Jan27.191018.21657@bradford.ac.uk>
- Sender: usenet@shamash.cdc.com
- Organization: ICEM Systems, Inc.
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1993Jan27.191018.21657@bradford.ac.uk>, T.D.G.Sandford@bradford.ac.uk (TDG SANDFORD) writes:
- |> tried to deinstall patch00603
- |> reported "required by patch00602" so
- |> tried to deinstall patch00602
- |> succesfull
- |> tried to deinstall patch00603
- |> reported "user has deleted file (?cant remember?) - can't deinstall"
- |> tried reinstalling patch00602
- |> succesfull
- |> tried deinstalling patch00603 again
- |> reported "required by patch00055"
-
- I had exactly the same problem. It turns out that patch 602 and 603 patch
- the same file (pccons.c) and they are mutually exclusive. You'll notice
- that in with pccons.c you'll also find pccons.pl[123] and pccons.rej. The
- patch 603 changes pccons.c and then bombs out leaving the .rej.
-
- I rescued pccons.c by backing out 603 by hand (and luck).
-
- BTW, I also had a couple of patch rejects (my fault) but patches didn't
- say anything about them. Shouldn't there be some kind of error or warning
- if a .rej is created?
- --
- #include <std.disclaimer>
- #define FULL_NAME "Paul Dokas"
- #define EMAIL "pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com"
- /* Just remember, you *WILL* die someday. */
-