Wed, 20 Feb 2002 05:02:51 +0100
On Wednesday 20 February 2002 04:29, Fabrice MARIE wrote:
> Great option, thanks.
> Finally I can go for a smoke when all the patchwa that I usually
> apply are getting applied :)
If you look back in the archives this patch has actually been
submitted before... then being the -y option. Wasn't accepted that
happily by the core team (specifically Rusty) then, simply rejected
with the response "use yes | runme ...". Lets see what happens this
> Just one thing though .. it keeps on
> asking for my attention every time the patch fails to applky
> cleanly, typical example is ./runme --batch base, it will fail in
> many patches in submitted/pending because they're already included
> in the kernel. What about an option like --ignore-fails that would
> just ignore the failed attempts (of course not force-applying the
> patch) ? Wouldn't it be great ? :)
Yes, that is the intention. runme does not know what to do in such
case and needs help. You have selected to apply the patch, runme
cannot tell why it fails or if it should fail, only that it cannot
apply the patch or detect that the patch is already applied.
It however currently only fails for a single patch in submitted and
none in base. runme properly detects that all other applied patches
are aldeady applied. At least when testing with a 2.4.17 kernel.
To work around this small problem, you can call runme individually
for each patch you want to apply, or wait for my next set of runme
* --exclude option to exclude individual patches
* the ability to specify a list of patches to apply
Or add your own option to automatically skip failing patches. I do
not plan on making such an option as I'd like to have some control of
the result. If a patch fails I'd like to know about it in case it is
a patch I need.
The changes are somewhat overlapping in diff format, and is why I
haven't posted them yet.
Up til some day ago I was using the -y patch, and listed each
individual patch I wanted to apply.