From:	"chris.danx" <chris DOT danx AT ntlworld DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010711081652 DOT 1314F-100000 AT is> <dTX27.26235$B56 DOT 4610229 AT news2-win DOT server DOT ntlworld DOT com> <2950-Wed11Jul2001185249+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <___27.27447$B56 DOT 4729855 AT news2-win DOT server DOT ntlworld DOT com> <2561-Wed11Jul2001195910+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: Question on GPP 2.8.1 and DJGPP
Lines:	31
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID:	<HS137.18284$WS4.2883510@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:35:17 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Host:	62.252.136.200
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT ntlworld DOT com
X-Trace:	news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 994880039 62.252.136.200 (Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:33:59 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:33:59 BST
Organization:	ntlworld News Service
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote in message
news:2561-Wed11Jul2001195910+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il...
> > From: "chris.danx" <chris DOT danx AT ntlworld DOT com>
> > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:19:22 +0100
> >
> > I meant to say that when i ran patch with djgpp.diff, i got some
> > hunks that were rejected.  When i modified the file names, I got
> > even more hunks rejected
>
> I suspect that the ones rejected in the second run were those which
> were applied okay in the first.  For those, Patch will usually say
> that it found this patch either already applied or reversed, and will
> ask whether to apply it anyway.  Answer NO (the default replies it
> suggests are okay, so just hit Enter twice).

I don't think this is the case.  I delete the directory tree and recreate it
before running the patches through each time.  This is necessary the build
process as yet doesn't work for me.  When I tried running the patches over
semi-patched files, I got sick of hitting n all the time (the number of patches
is quite large!) and decided to delete the tree and uncompress the archives.
Fortunately the machine is quite fast and it doesn't take very long (10-20s) but
it shouldn't be necessary, it should build in one pass and not need me poking
it.  It's not the maintainers fault, it's just incompatibilities between Unices
and Windows and lack of foresight (DOS 11 character names, with an ugly hack to
account for long names, that kind of thing).


Chris

- Raw text -