Might be better to read and comprehend ``man patch'' before assuming
limitations on the scope of patch's reach.

quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-misc@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-misc@openbsd.org] On Behalf
> Of Uwe Dippel
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 11:23 AM
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade
> base47, on i386 and amd64
>
> Jacob Meuser <jakemsr <at> sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
>
> > oh good grief.  you had a dirty /usr/obj.
> >
> > just look at the pfctl snippet of the log you posted.  do you see
> pfctl
> > being built?  do you see pfctl being installed from /usr/obj?
>
> Oh, yes. So the blame is on my side, I guess. Mea culpa maxima!
> I didn't know that the object directories need to be cleaned manually.
> Until
> yesterday, I would have taken a bet that the object directories lie
> within the
> source trees (/usr/xenocaram /usr/src), and be cleaned when cleaning
> the
> sources. Now I am aware that I need to know the location of the object
> directories and clean them manually.
> I was totally unaware that, in case of a patch, the installer would
> take the
> next best file of the correct name from there; irrespective of the
> underlying
> version.
> Though I feel in good company. I guess, a great number of people on
> this list
> were in a similar situation. Knowing the 'social contract' of OpenBSD,
> I only
> have to blame myself for ignorance.
> Still, may I suggest, that the next Upgrade Guide gets an extra line,
> with a
> remark pointing out the existence of /usr/obj; and the suggestion to
> clean it?
> Also, with respect to the 'errata', the patches, they describe in
> detail what
> needs to be done. Maybe here, it could as well be suggested, that
> before
> applying the first patch of a new version of OpenBSD, /usr/obj should
> be
> cleaned, or be verified to be clean?
>
> Thanks for the various people who helped me patiently at analysing this
> problem
> to the very end!
>
> Uwe