From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: cpufreq and P-IIIM Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:07:10 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20030818190710.C1737@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20030818112943.GD18032@poupinou.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from jan@rychter.com on Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:02:29AM -0700 Errors-To: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jan Rychter Cc: Ducrot Bruno , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:02:29AM -0700, Jan Rychter wrote: > Ducrot> That version is way too old anyway. > > Huh? That was the latest 2.4 snapshot that I was able to pull from > ftp.linux.org.uk: cpufreq-LINUX_2_4-20030816.tar.bz2. > > If these are not the 'official' archives and the snapshots are outdated, > I'd humbly suggest pulling them off the net, because it confuses > people. As far as I'm concerned (as being the guy running the CVS and FTP archive) they remain official until the cpufreq maintainers explicitly tell me otherwise. Maintainers need to either check their changes into the CVS tree or tell me that they no longer wish to use CVS, or tell me that they want a 2.4-ac branch, or whatever. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html