From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 10 23:39:33 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D6516A4CE for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:39:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.117]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E935343D46 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:39:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jayobrien@att.net) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (dsl093-180-184.sac1.dsl.speakeasy.net[66.93.180.184]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13) with ESMTP id <20050410233939113003bo2me>; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:39:39 +0000 Message-ID: <4259B932.1010005@att.net> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:39:30 -0700 From: Jay O'Brien User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD - questions References: <0IEH00KMJ6U14XA0@store.etat.lu> <1112729834.68302.2.camel@genius2.i.cz> <4258D61C.90301@att.net> <1113127599.8293.116.camel@genius2.i.cz> <42594C93.5070203@att.net> <1113149943.630.37.camel@genius2.i.cz> <4259A6E9.2090104@att.net> <1113173019.630.45.camel@genius2.i.cz> In-Reply-To: <1113173019.630.45.camel@genius2.i.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Michal Mertl Subject: Re: [PATCH TO TEST] VESA [1024x768] mode support for FreeBSD-CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:39:33 -0000 Michal Mertl wrote: > > You haven't read the thread in the archives carefully enough, have you? Yes, but unfortunately I didn't comprehend. > Here is what I wrote (privately to the original poster but I explained > the error to the mailing list too): > > >>What? I don't know how the patching of vidcontrol ended but you'd >>better redo it with fresh files from current. Go download vidcontrol.c >>v 1.48 and vidcontrol.1 from >>http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/vidcontrol/ >> >>Then run the patch on it again and recompile/reinstall vidcontrol >>binary. > I did that. The files are vidcontrol.1 Rev 1.55 and Vidcontrol.c Rev 1.48. Now all hunks failed. The results are below. What did I screw up this time? Jay |Index: vidcontrol.1 |=================================================================== |RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/usr.sbin/vidcontrol/vidcontrol.1,v |retrieving revision 1.55 |diff -u -r1.55 vidcontrol.1 |--- vidcontrol.1 2 Mar 2003 21:04:21 -0000 1.55 |+++ vidcontrol.1 17 Jan 2005 05:27:25 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file vidcontrol.1 using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 11. Hunk #2 failed at 88. Hunk #3 failed at 297. Hunk #4 failed at 532. 4 out of 4 hunks failed--saving rejects to vidcontrol.1.rej Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |Index: vidcontrol.c |=================================================================== |RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/usr.sbin/vidcontrol/vidcontrol.c,v |retrieving revision 1.48 |diff -u -r1.48 vidcontrol.c |--- vidcontrol.c 13 Jan 2005 03:59:44 -0000 1.48 |+++ vidcontrol.c 17 Jan 2005 05:27:25 -0000 -------------------------- Patching file vidcontrol.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 24. Hunk #2 failed at 48. Hunk #3 failed at 66. Hunk #4 failed at 187. Hunk #5 failed at 223. Hunk #6 failed at 239. Hunk #7 failed at 257. Hunk #8 failed at 297. Hunk #9 failed at 332. Hunk #10 failed at 348. Hunk #11 failed at 377. Hunk #12 failed at 419. Hunk #13 failed at 507. Hunk #14 failed at 572. Hunk #15 failed at 669. Hunk #16 failed at 722. Hunk #17 failed at 743. Hunk #18 failed at 806. Hunk #19 failed at 891. Hunk #20 failed at 900. Hunk #21 failed at 933. Hunk #22 failed at 950. Hunk #23 failed at 962. Hunk #24 failed at 985. Hunk #25 failed at 1035. Hunk #26 failed at 1050. Hunk #27 failed at 1148. Hunk #28 failed at 1173. Hunk #29 failed at 1217. Hunk #30 failed at 1234. 30 out of 30 hunks failed--saving rejects to vidcontrol.c.rej done