Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:04:33 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii To: Ralph Proctor cc: Shawn Hargreaves , djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Allegro wip? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19980330121253.2487743e@shadow.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Ralph Proctor wrote: > After 18 lines of "patching file..." notes, it stopped and I saw this: > > Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] This means that `patch' detected a file that seems to be already patched. `patch' then suggests to reverse (undo) the patch--that's what the -R switch does--in case this is what you want. So it appears that you have some of the sources already changed. Nothing to worry about, except that you need to look at the patches which were rejected (they are in the files whose names end with a `#' on plain DOS and with `.rej' on Windows 9X; `patch' prints the names of these ``reject files'' whenever it doesn't apply some of the patches). Look at the rejected hunks and compare them with the sources you have, to see whether all of the rejected patches are already in your sources. If not, edit the sources manually to bring them into sync. > Then it went to a conclusion, but on the way there were some discouraging > remarks which I do not understand. That is the punishment reserved for those who use a tool (in this case, `patch') without reading its docs ;-). > Now, maybe the problem is I did not answer the questions properly. No, you really did the right thing there. Btw, I suggest everybody to use `patch' with the -b switch. This forces `patch' to always leave the original version of the file as backup (with `.orig' extension on LFN platforms and with `~' as the last file name character on non-LFN ones), so if worse comes to worst, you still have the original file available. Shawn, if your patching instructions don't include -b, I suggest adding it.