Bug 144431

Summary: Many incorrect patch files in the source RPM ?
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jørgen Thomsen <joergen>
Component: kernelAssignee: Dave Jones <davej>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 3CC: pfrields, wtogami
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-01-06 23:06:36 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jørgen Thomsen 2005-01-06 22:49:55 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Opera 
7.54  [en]

Description of problem:
I noticed by manually running the patches in the package, that they 
produced 171 FAILED messages along with a lot of succesfull patches. 
I also noticed, that at least one failed patch file definitely did 
not have the linux-2.6.9 file as its source. After studying more how 
to compile the source I succesfully ran the steps, but I am wondering 
if the failing patches were just ignored and if I now have an 
unstable kernel in an undefined state not equal to 2.6.9-1.681_FC3 
with my tiny change of one variable.


BTW as mentioned in another report: a HOWTO compile document is 
highly needed with the source.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
src RPM for 2.6.9-1.681_FC3

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. run patches of the src RPM manually 
2.
3.
    

Actual Results:  many FAILED messages

Expected Results:  all success

Additional info:

Comment 1 Dave Jones 2005-01-06 23:06:36 UTC
I don't know what you did, but you're doing something wrong.
I've done hundreds of local builds without error, and the build system
wouldn't spit out binary rpm's if something went wrong in the patching
process.


Comment 2 Warren Togami 2005-01-07 00:26:22 UTC
He probably was trying to patch manually, and it failed because one
patch relies upon another.