[Top] [All Lists]

Re: linux-2.4-xfs-1.0.patch

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: linux-2.4-xfs-1.0.patch
From: Igor Pruchanskiy <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 19:46:42 -0700
Cc: Igor Pruchanskiy <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3AF0AD79.5712D5D9@sgi.com>; from sandeen@sgi.com on Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:59:37PM -0500
References: <20010502174113.A21501@linuxinside.com> <3AF0AA07.C4A72E6C@sgi.com> <20010502175326.B21501@linuxinside.com> <3AF0AD79.5712D5D9@sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
The funny thing is that either one of the patches applys cleanly on it's own.
but as soon as you start adding a second patch it starts complaining.....


On Wed 02 May 2001, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Igor Pruchanskiy wrote:
> > 
> > doh! my fault....
> > 
> > that worked, but now linux-2.4.4-xfsTEST.patch won't apply complaining 
> > about already patched files....
> That's because 2.4.4-xfsTEST is not a released version, and is packaged
> differently.  It contains all patched files, while the official,
> released patches are broken into "core linux" and "xfs filesystem"
> patches.
> I guess that's not obvious, but we don't expect people to mix-n-match
> patches... :)
> -Eric
> -- 
> Eric Sandeen      XFS for Linux     http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
> sandeen@xxxxxxx   SGI, Inc.

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