Relationship between bk libuxppc-2.4 and denx linuxppc_2_4_devel

Relationship between bk libuxppc-2.4 and denx linuxppc_2_4_devel

[Stephen Williams]

This may have been asked on this list before, but I can't seem
to find it in the list archives.

What is the relationship between the linuxppc-2.4 tree from
bk, and the anonymous cvs linuxppc_2_4_devel hosted by Denx?
The latter *seems* more stable, but I'm hoping to integrate
in patches for me JSE board after cleaning up patches, and
it's not clear which tree I should work with.
--
Steve Williams                "The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
steve at XXXXXXXXXX           But I have promises to keep,
http://www.XXXXXXXXXX         and lines to code before I sleep,
http://www.picturel.com       And lines to code before I sleep."


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Relationship between bk libuxppc-2.4 and denx linuxppc_2_4_devel

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <11675-28654@sneakemail.com> you wrote:
>
> What is the relationship between the linuxppc-2.4 tree from
> bk, and the anonymous cvs linuxppc_2_4_devel hosted by Denx?

Our linuxppc_2_4_devel CVS tree is a (modified, extended) copy of the
BK tree of the same name, which used to be the "official" development
tree but has been declared dead a long time ago.

> The latter *seems* more stable, but I'm hoping to integrate
> in patches for me JSE board after cleaning up patches, and
> it's not clear which tree I should work with.

You should work with  the  official  trees,  i.  e.  linuxppc-2.4  or
linuxppc-2.5.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable
	-- Spock, "The Enterprise" Incident", stardate 5027.3

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Relationship between bk libuxppc-2.4 and denx linuxppc_2_4_devel

[Chris Clark]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> You should work with  the  official  trees,  i.  e.  linuxppc-2.4  or
> linuxppc-2.5.

Unless I made some mistake in cloning the linuxppc-2.{4,5} trees from
ppc.bkbits.net, (which is entirely possible as I'm a BK newbie), there
appears to be a fair amount of processor- and platform-specific stuff
in the Denx linuxppc_2_4_devel CVS tree which does not appear in the
ppc.bkbits.net BK trees (e.g. arch/ppc/5xxx_io/... ).

Is the Denx CVS tree "authoritative" with regard to those extras?  Is
there any expectation that those bits found only in the Denx CVS tree
will eventually find their way into the ppc.bkbits.net tree(s)?  (Or
some other, more appropriate tree(s)?  If so, which?)

Thanks,
Chris

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Relationship between bk libuxppc-2.4 and denx linuxppc_2_4_devel

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:59:48PM -0600, Chris Clark wrote:

>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > You should work with  the  official  trees,  i.  e.  linuxppc-2.4  or
> > linuxppc-2.5.
>
> Unless I made some mistake in cloning the linuxppc-2.{4,5} trees from
> ppc.bkbits.net, (which is entirely possible as I'm a BK newbie), there
> appears to be a fair amount of processor- and platform-specific stuff
> in the Denx linuxppc_2_4_devel CVS tree which does not appear in the
> ppc.bkbits.net BK trees (e.g. arch/ppc/5xxx_io/... ).
>
> Is the Denx CVS tree "authoritative" with regard to those extras?  Is
> there any expectation that those bits found only in the Denx CVS tree
> will eventually find their way into the ppc.bkbits.net tree(s)?  (Or
> some other, more appropriate tree(s)?  If so, which?)

For 2.4?  Denx will probably be the "authoritative" tree.  For 2.6 I am
hopeful that something can be worked out.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Relationship between bk libuxppc-2.4 and denx linuxppc_2_4_devel

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.53.0406111437580.9184@solaris.xmission.com> you wrote:
>
> Unless I made some mistake in cloning the linuxppc-2.{4,5} trees from
> ppc.bkbits.net, (which is entirely possible as I'm a BK newbie), there
> appears to be a fair amount of processor- and platform-specific stuff
> in the Denx linuxppc_2_4_devel CVS tree which does not appear in the
> ppc.bkbits.net BK trees (e.g. arch/ppc/5xxx_io/... ).

Your finding is correct.

> Is the Denx CVS tree "authoritative" with regard to those extras?  Is

No, not at all. It's just what we're doing here at DENX.

> there any expectation that those bits found only in the Denx CVS tree
> will eventually find their way into the ppc.bkbits.net tree(s)?  (Or
> some other, more appropriate tree(s)?  If so, which?)

I gave up submitting patches - probably my communication  skills  are
inadequate.


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence.
                                                   -- Edsger Dijkstra

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/