From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:12:55 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Tom Rini Cc: Iain Sandoe , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: which bk version to use (was re: 2.4.0 & ac1) Message-ID: <20010108091255.A3077@work.bitmover.com> References: <20010108165615.06DAD2EF96@apollo.valhalla.net> <20010108100432.L19404@opus.bloom.county> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20010108100432.L19404@opus.bloom.county> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:04:32AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:00:36PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2001, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > >> so what's on the rsync linuxppc_2_3 ? > > > > > > No idea. It might be 2_4 it might not be. :) > > > > can you post something when it is known? > > (I find rsync very useful). > > I'll ask. > > > > The 2_4 tree is building. If it's not building, report it here. > > > > OK... supposing I get bk... which version of BK do I need?... > > > > I ask because I read a comment on bk-user that the latest version may not be > > right for the PPC trees... is that an up-to-date statement? > > Unfortunatly, probably. The "stable" bk (ie 1.2) is what you want. Yup. You don't want to switch to the 2.0beta stuff yet, we need to redo the triggers one more time. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/