[386bsd] problem with new patchkit?

Thread View: comp.unix.bsd

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by TDG SANDFORD Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:10

#5758

Author: TDG SANDFORD
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:10

34 lines
1623 bytes

I grabbed a copy of the new patchkit (0.2) from my local 386bsd mirror
(src.doc.ic.ac.uk), but have had some problems with it. Is it me or
is it the patchkit?

Here's what I did:
(all as root)
ftp'd new patchkit (file patchkit-0.2.tar.Z length 478731 date Jan 24 22:23)
De-installed all patches from old kit (DALL)
Moved old kit to /usr/oldpatch and deleted /patch link
untarred new patch kit to /usr/patch
ran bin/mkpatchdirs
ran bin/patches
	all the patches deearchived etc
did an IALL
	all patches sucessfully installed
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"

It looks to me as though it might be regarding PREREQUISITE patches as
DEPENDANT patches in deinstallation.

Is this the case? Have I done something stupid? Has anyone else experienced
problems?

--
Thomas Sandford | t.d.g.sandford@bradford.ac.uk

Re: [386bsd] problem with new patchkit?

#5772

Author: Paul Dokas
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:23

27 lines
1750 bytes

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.             */

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads