I am trying to apply the patch to the kernel-source. This is what I get:
root@scott-desktop:/usr/local/src/linux-source-2.6.28-10/linux-source-2.6.28.10-ikepanhc-lp276949#
patch -p1 < ../0001-V4L-DVB-9870-gspca-vc032x-Webcam-15b8-6002-and.patch
patching file Documentation/video4linux/gspca.txt
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n] y
Hunk #1 FAILED at 265.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
Documentation/video4linux/gspca.txt.rej
patching file drivers/media/video/gspca/vc032x.c
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
8 out of 8 hunks ignored -- saving rejects to file
drivers/media/video/gspca/vc032x.c.rej
When I look for the file, not found.
Suggestions?
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Scott Price <email address hidden>wrote:
> Hello Ike -- While getting a quite thorough crash-course in Kernel
> compilation, I am not quite sure as to which file is to be assigned the
> recipient of the all-important patch... Otherwise, I have learned how to use
> the files available on your page and you don't need to create an AMD64
> version. Once I have ascertained where to place the patch, I will test it
> post-haste.
>
> Thank you for your diligent work.
>
> "Every path hath a puddle."
>
> -- George Herbert
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Scott Price <email address hidden>wrote:
>
>> Hello Ike,
>>
>> I'm not sure, but last time I tried to install an i386 program through Deb
>> installer, it came back with an error -- wrong architecture, or something
>> like that.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Ike Panhc <email address hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Scott,
>>>
>>> I build the kernel in x86 version, so it shall work fine with AMD64
>>> system
>>>
>>> If you are worried. I will make a AMD64 kernel for you
>>>
>>> --
>>> No driver for HP Webcam - 15b8:6002
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/276949
>>> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
>>> of the bug.
>>>
>>
>>
>
Hello again Ike,
I am trying to apply the patch to the kernel-source. This is what I get:
root@scott- desktop: /usr/local/ src/linux- source- 2.6.28- 10/linux- source- 2.6.28. 10-ikepanhc- lp276949# V4L-DVB- 9870-gspca- vc032x- Webcam- 15b8-6002- and.patch video4linux/ gspca.txt video4linux/ gspca.txt. rej media/video/ gspca/vc032x. c media/video/ gspca/vc032x. c.rej
patch -p1 < ../0001-
patching file Documentation/
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n] y
Hunk #1 FAILED at 265.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
Documentation/
patching file drivers/
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
8 out of 8 hunks ignored -- saving rejects to file
drivers/
When I look for the file, not found.
Suggestions?
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Scott Price <email address hidden>wrote:
> Hello Ike -- While getting a quite thorough crash-course in Kernel /bugs.launchpad .net/bugs/ 276949
> compilation, I am not quite sure as to which file is to be assigned the
> recipient of the all-important patch... Otherwise, I have learned how to use
> the files available on your page and you don't need to create an AMD64
> version. Once I have ascertained where to place the patch, I will test it
> post-haste.
>
> Thank you for your diligent work.
>
> "Every path hath a puddle."
>
> -- George Herbert
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Scott Price <email address hidden>wrote:
>
>> Hello Ike,
>>
>> I'm not sure, but last time I tried to install an i386 program through Deb
>> installer, it came back with an error -- wrong architecture, or something
>> like that.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Ike Panhc <email address hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Scott,
>>>
>>> I build the kernel in x86 version, so it shall work fine with AMD64
>>> system
>>>
>>> If you are worried. I will make a AMD64 kernel for you
>>>
>>> --
>>> No driver for HP Webcam - 15b8:6002
>>> https:/
>>> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
>>> of the bug.
>>>
>>
>>
>