From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:32:04 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Iain Sandoe 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: <20010108093204.I19404@opus.bloom.county> References: <20010108161159.46AB62EF98@apollo.valhalla.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20010108161159.46AB62EF98@apollo.valhalla.net>; from iain@sandoe.co.uk on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:16:24PM +0000 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:16:24PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Mon, Jan 8, 2001, Tom Rini wrote: > > 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. > > so what's on the rsync linuxppc_2_3 ? No idea. It might be 2_4 it might not be. :) > (for those of us who still haven't had time to tangle with bk ;-) > > and can I expect it to build? > what state does it represent? > (i.e. is it a continuation of the same tree - or a rebuild from the 2.4.0 > final) The 2_4 tree is building. If it's not building, report it here. It represents what will someday get to Linus. Hopefully sooner rather than later. It's a new tree which is the old tree. Cort made a new one, called 2_4 and I put all of our changes from 2_3 back in. It's based off of 2.4.0 final. > is there any point trying kernel.org 2.4.0 final? (or ac3 - which I pulled > last night) No. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/