From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:04:32 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Iain Sandoe Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: which bk version to use (was re: 2.4.0 & ac1) Message-ID: <20010108100432.L19404@opus.bloom.county> References: <20010108165615.06DAD2EF96@apollo.valhalla.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20010108165615.06DAD2EF96@apollo.valhalla.net>; from iain@sandoe.co.uk on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:00:36PM +0000 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: 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/