From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:03:07 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Iain Sandoe , 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: <20010108100306.K19404@opus.bloom.county> References: <20010108093204.I19404@opus.bloom.county> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from geert@linux-m68k.org on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:54:00PM +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: 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/