From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:40:15 -0900 From: Ethan Benson To: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1 Message-ID: <20010105154015.R29805@plato.local.lan> References: <200101051455.f05Et0v06700@ashley.ivey.uwo.ca> <20010105083740.B14321@opus.bloom.county> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bgCgbCt+U3u1f4Pw" In-Reply-To: <20010105083740.B14321@opus.bloom.county>; from trini@kernel.crashing.org on Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 08:37:40AM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: --bgCgbCt+U3u1f4Pw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 08:37:40AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: >=20 > On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:55:00AM -0500, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote: >=20 > > I have not kept up with 2.4.0 development at all. I see that Linus has > > officially released 2.4.0. Alan has also release 2.4.0-ac1. What is t= he > > status of ppc support in either of these kernels? >=20 > Don't bother with kernel.org, Alan's tree is better but not fully merged. > 2_3 bk is fine, 2_5 bk will be merged up shortly. > http://www.fsmlabs.com/linuxppcbk.html it would really be more useful if a unified patch against the 2.4.0 on kernel.org could be made available somewhere (penguinppc.org) to create a cleaned up, merged finalized 2.4.0-powerpc without requiring [ordinary] people to fiddle with the proprietary bk. =20 either that or finish merging with alan and tell people to use the -ac series. =20 --=20 Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ --bgCgbCt+U3u1f4Pw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline --bgCgbCt+U3u1f4Pw-- ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/