From: Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha@gnu.org>
To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, torvalds@transmeta.com
Cc: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>, Terminator <jimmy@mtc.dhs.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:13:14 +0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011107091314.A11202@bee.lk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111051936090.18663-100000@www.mtc.dhs.org> <20011105194316.B665@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> <1005019360.897.2.camel@phantasy>
In-Reply-To: <1005019360.897.2.camel@phantasy>; from rml@tech9.net on Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:02:36PM -0500
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:02:36PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2001-11-05 at 22:43, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >
> > Did anyone have this problem with pre8???
>
> Nope, it was added post-pre8 to final. The deactivate_page function was
> removed completely.
Look, Linus. Things should _not_ happen this way.
Why do we add non-trivial changes when going from last -preX of a test kernel
series to -final?
Please make the last stable -preX the -final _without_ any changes. This is
the third time this caused problem in recent times (2.4.11-dontuse, parport
compile problems and now loop.o), and why don't we learn from previous
mistakes?
Isn't it stupid that some tarballs in the /pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/ do not even
compile, while those in /pub/linux/kernel/testing/ does?
Regards,
Anuradha
--
Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.14-pre7)
I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate
of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ...
-- F. H. Wales (1936)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-07 3:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-06 3:39 kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device Terminator
2001-11-06 3:43 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-11-06 4:02 ` Robert Love
2001-11-06 4:08 ` Mohammad A. Haque
2001-11-06 4:14 ` Robert Love
2001-11-06 4:29 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-11-07 12:13 ` Todd M. Roy
2001-11-07 20:49 ` Roeland Th. Jansen
2001-11-07 21:11 ` Mohammad A. Haque
2001-11-07 21:34 ` J Sloan
2001-11-07 11:58 ` rpjday
2001-11-07 21:44 ` J Sloan
2001-11-07 21:41 ` Roeland Th. Jansen
2001-11-07 21:40 ` Roeland Th. Jansen
2001-11-07 3:13 ` Anuradha Ratnaweera [this message]
2001-11-07 3:17 ` Are -final releases realy FINAL? (Was Re: kernel 2.4.14 compiling fail for loop device) Mike Fedyk
2001-11-07 3:27 ` Anuradha Ratnaweera
2001-11-07 3:24 ` Michael H. Warfield
2001-11-07 4:06 ` David Lang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20011107091314.A11202@bee.lk \
--to=anuradha@gnu.org \
--cc=jimmy@mtc.dhs.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.