Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA166 ; Fri, 29 Jan 93 03:01:36 EST Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!swrinde!emory!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. */