From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 05:59:22 -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: <20010106055922.Y29805@plato.local.lan> References: <200101051455.f05Et0v06700@ashley.ivey.uwo.ca> <20010105083740.B14321@opus.bloom.county> <20010105154015.R29805@plato.local.lan> <3A572925.4A791E05@iiic.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="D9gQZneUBQfHBTVA" In-Reply-To: <3A572925.4A791E05@iiic.ethz.ch>; from michdaen@iiic.ethz.ch on Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 03:18:13PM +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: --D9gQZneUBQfHBTVA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 03:18:13PM +0100, Michel D=E4nzer wrote: >=20 > I'm running 2.4.0 from linuxppc_2_3 and have never used bk. rsync is rath= er > cool. yes but if this tree is stabelized, and thus not being fiddeled with (as it should be for a 2.4.0) then a unified diff or full out tarball would be more convenient. IMO anyway. the main thing i think is needed is a *static* finalized 2.4.0 for powerpc people can use. not everyone wants to recompile the kernel every day to get/fix `the tweak of the day' of actively developed kernels. =20 --=20 Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ --D9gQZneUBQfHBTVA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline --D9gQZneUBQfHBTVA-- ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/