* which bk version to use (was re: 2.4.0 & ac1)
@ 2001-01-08 17:00 Iain Sandoe
2001-01-08 17:04 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Iain Sandoe @ 2001-01-08 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
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).
[...]
> 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?
(apologies for these questions - but I've been out of circulation for 6
months and have a lot of catching up to do before I can do anything
useful...)
Iain.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: which bk version to use (was re: 2.4.0 & ac1)
2001-01-08 17:00 which bk version to use (was re: 2.4.0 & ac1) Iain Sandoe
@ 2001-01-08 17:04 ` Tom Rini
2001-01-08 17:12 ` Larry McVoy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2001-01-08 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Iain Sandoe; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
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.
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: which bk version to use (was re: 2.4.0 & ac1)
2001-01-08 17:04 ` Tom Rini
@ 2001-01-08 17:12 ` Larry McVoy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2001-01-08 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: Iain Sandoe, linuxppc-dev
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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-01-08 17:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-01-08 17:00 which bk version to use (was re: 2.4.0 & ac1) Iain Sandoe
2001-01-08 17:04 ` Tom Rini
2001-01-08 17:12 ` Larry McVoy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).