[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 11:15:50PM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > It doesn't apply cleanly: > > Sorry. Now it's tested (see bellow).
No, it's much worse now: patching file pt.po Hunk #1 FAILED at 133. Hunk #4 FAILED at 226. Hunk #5 FAILED at 1190. Hunk #6 FAILED at 1411. Hunk #7 FAILED at 2134. Hunk #8 FAILED at 2150. Hunk #9 FAILED at 2166. Hunk #10 FAILED at 4622. Hunk #11 FAILED at 4634. Hunk #12 FAILED at 5132. Hunk #13 FAILED at 5171. Hunk #14 FAILED at 5185. Hunk #15 FAILED at 5199. Hunk #16 FAILED at 5217. Hunk #17 FAILED at 5231. Hunk #18 FAILED at 5245. Hunk #19 FAILED at 5266. Hunk #20 succeeded at 5368 with fuzz 2 (offset -71 lines). 17 out of 20 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file pt.po.rej > I got an error message while trying to do a cvs update the last time. The > error was about merge problems between some versions (I can't remeber the > exact error message right now). Paste it here. > Couldn't figure out which exact message is useless. I'll do that in the > next update. By now, the attached gzipped patch seems to work fine here. > At least it was applied fine in my tests. That's nice, but you giving me a patch against an old version of pt.po. You need to do this: mv pt.po my_new_pt.po cvs -q up -A pt.po Next, you can either move back 'my_new_pt.po' or else manually patch your changes back. If you do the former, you'll probably need to run 'make update-pt' to make sure that the source indicators in pt.po are up-to-date. -- ...Adam Di Carlo..<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
