I'm looking at the update to exim and the Berkeley patch still seems to be relevant. The problem is that the locations have changed slightly. When I do an ordinary patch, I get:
$ patch -Np1 -i ../exim-4.43-db43-1.patch patching file src/exim_dbmbuild.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 60. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/exim_dbmbuild.c.rej patching file src/exim_dbutil.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 79. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/exim_dbutil.c.rej patching file src/dbfn.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 42. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/dbfn.c.rej patching file src/dbfunctions.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 22. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/dbfunctions.h.rej But if I change the fuzz factor, it succeeds: $ patch -Np1 -F20 -i ../exim-4.43-db43-1.patch patching file src/exim_dbmbuild.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 67 with fuzz 3 (offset 7 lines). patching file src/exim_dbutil.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 87 with fuzz 3 (offset 8 lines). patching file src/dbfn.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 50 with fuzz 3 (offset 8 lines). patching file src/dbfunctions.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 28 with fuzz 3 (offset 6 lines). I'm undecided how to handle this. Using the -F option to patch is educational and means we don't need to change the patch at all. OTOH, a regenerated patch would apply cleanly but would mean more work. I'm inclined to use the -F option for the educational value. Opinions? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
