From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk>, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:03:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010108100306.K19404@opus.bloom.county> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.05.10101081753120.30839-100000@callisto.of.borg>; from geert@linux-m68k.org on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:54:00PM +0100
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:54:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:16:24PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> > > (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)
>
> It may help to create nightly diffs between Linus' 2.4.0 and linuxppc_2_4 and
> put them on some FTP site. People still more like patches than bk :-)
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. :)
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-01-08 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-01-08 16:16 status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1 Iain Sandoe
2001-01-08 16:32 ` Tom Rini
2001-01-08 16:54 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2001-01-08 17:03 ` Tom Rini [this message]
2001-01-08 17:14 ` Larry McVoy
2001-01-08 17:20 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-01-09 23:45 Iain Sandoe
2001-01-10 1:09 ` Derek Homeier
[not found] <3A59C65F.D92C79E8@pop.agri.ch>
2001-01-09 22:28 ` Derek Homeier
2001-01-08 14:48 Iain Sandoe
2001-01-09 22:39 ` Derek Homeier
[not found] <200101070559.XAA14527@lists.linuxppc.org>
2001-01-08 13:35 ` Derek Homeier
2001-01-08 14:15 ` Ethan Benson
2001-01-05 14:55 Kevin B. Hendricks
2001-01-05 15:37 ` Tom Rini
2001-01-06 0:40 ` Ethan Benson
2001-01-06 14:18 ` Michel Dänzer
2001-01-06 14:59 ` Ethan Benson
2001-01-06 17:42 ` Tom Rini
2001-01-06 18:22 ` Tony Mantler
2001-01-08 15:07 ` Kaoru Fukui
2001-01-08 15:37 ` Tom Rini
2001-01-06 17:35 ` Olaf Hering
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010108100306.K19404@opus.bloom.county \
--to=trini@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=iain@sandoe.co.uk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).