🚀 go-pugleaf

billm@euler.maths.monash.edu.au (WE Metzenthen) writes:

>Ken Yap (ken@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU) wrote:
>: |	Hi, is it recomended to upgrade my kernel by patching??
>: 
>: It should work. Just make sure you patch from the right directory or
>: you many end up with some stray files (usually new ones that were to be
>: created in the new version). I think the magic incantation is patch -p0
>: < patch... in /usr/src, but I forget. Any .rej files is a sign some
>: patches didn't take.

>Linus' patches for the kernel work fine.  My current kernel (1.3.67)
>is the result of patching all the way from 1.3.60.  It is rare to

FWIW, I patched (via a script) from 1.3.0 to 1.3.58 to create the
kernel source size vs patchlevel graph that can be found on 

	http://rsphy1.anu.edu.au/~gpg109/mem.html

I then diffed it against a pristine linux-1.3.58.tar.gz to verify that
it was ok, and indeed it was identical.

The last time there was a problem with the patches from Linus, was about
1.1.45, where you had to nuke a couple of dirs after applying the patch.

>My preferred way of working is to put the patches into one directory
>(/usr/src/linux-1.3) and cd to the directory containing the kernel
>source (/usr/src/linux).  Then, for example, I would do:
>     zcat ../linux-1.3/patch-1.3.67.gz | patch -p1 -s

Current kernels ship with a script in the ./scripts dir called 
"patch-kernel" or something like that. It takes a src dir and
location of the patches as arguments. It then figures out what
patches need to be applied, does that, and then checks for rejects.
Have a look at it. It makes patch based upgrades nearly idiot-proof.

Paul.