From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harry Kalogirou Subject: Re: ELKS not runnable.... (once again) Date: 17 May 2002 22:28:26 +0300 Sender: linux-8086-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1021663705.21866.9.camel@cool> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" To: Riley Williams Cc: Linux-8086 =D4=E7=ED =D0=E1=F1, 17-05-2002 =F3=F4=E9=F2 20:59, =EF/=E7 Riley Willi= ams =DD=E3=F1=E1=F8=E5: > Hi Harry. >=20 > >> I don't understand it either. All I can be sure of is that the > >> version produced by `cvs get -r elks-0_1_0 elks` has exactly the > >> same problem, but the one produced by `cvs get -D 'Apr 30 12:00:00 > >> 2002' elks` does not, so the problem lies somewhere between those > >> two versions. >=20 > > Why should we compare 0.1.0 with an older one? >=20 > We're not - we're comparing the official 0.1.0 release (which is the > version timestamped as above) with the tagged 0.1.0 release (which is > the one tagged elks-0_1_0 in the CVS tree) and finding they differ. >=20 > My comment above is pointing out that the version tagged as elks-0_1_= 0 > in the CVS tree is NOT the version that was released as 0.1.0 but a > later version with some extra tweaks applied. If the tag elks-0_1_0 has the timestamp you say and you checkout that timestamp and there are differences then CVS has some BUG, which I don'= t think so. >=20 > Which 0.1.0 release? As stated above, there are TWO DIFFERENT release= s > labelled as 0.1.0 depending on where one looks. > I checked it out with the tag elks-0_1_0.=20 =20 > > 3) The changes in the minix FS are very dangerous and require care.= =20 >=20 > Agreed. That's why I'm carefully reverting them. >=20 That is good to hear... Harry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-8086" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html