From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:37:22 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Kaoru Fukui Cc: 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: <20010108083722.G19404@opus.bloom.county> References: <200101051455.f05Et0v06700@ashley.ivey.uwo.ca> <20010105083740.B14321@opus.bloom.county> <20010105154015.R29805@plato.local.lan> <3A572925.4A791E05@iiic.ethz.ch> <20010106055922.Y29805@plato.local.lan> <20010106104247.A1400@opus.bloom.county> <20010109000703.Postino-015905@smtp01.highway.ne.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20010109000703.Postino-015905@smtp01.highway.ne.jp>; from k_fukui@highway.ne.jp on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:07:03AM +0900 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:07:03AM +0900, Kaoru Fukui wrote: > From: Tom Rini > To: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org > Subject: Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1 > Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:42:47 -0700 > > > > Well, the first problem is that it's now linuxppc_2_4 (which isn't a rename, > > it's a new tree) which needs all the fixes from 2_3, and some of the twitchy > > stuff left out. So it may or may not be possible to get a good 2.4 tree > for > > a bit (except for 2_5) anyways. > > What port number is bk linuxppc_2_4? > May our user access this linuxppc_2_4? 2_4 is on the same port as where 2_3 used to be. 2_4 is once again working, so everyone go and try that tree on your machine. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/