From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:49:09 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: "Albert D. Cahalan" Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org, Murray.Jensen@cmst.csiro.au Subject: Re: linuxppc_2_5 source tree (and others) Message-ID: <20010510114909.B28206@opus.bloom.county> References: <200105101840.f4AIe5d413262@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200105101840.f4AIe5d413262@saturn.cs.uml.edu>; from acahalan@cs.uml.edu on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 02:40:05PM -0400 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 02:40:05PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > > Tom Rini writes: > > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 06:38:02PM +1000, Murray Jensen wrote: > > >> Hi, I see that the linuxppc_2_5 bk tree has disappeared from fsmlabs, and > >> has been replaced with a linuxppc_2_4_devel tree. Could someone in the > >> know please post a quick update what this means, and perhaps what the > >> future holds wrt 2.4/2.5 linuxppc (embedded)? > > > > I was hoping Cort would mention this here, but 2_5 has been 'dead' for a > > while and is finally gone too. There's still mirrors of it however. > > It will exist again, but when 2.5.0 appears and will be based off the > > linux_2_4 tree or so. Right now 2_4_devel isn't up to date wrt 8xx/4xx, and > > some new boards 2_5 had. I'm working on it. :) > > Oh, lovely. > > I'm very glad to have ignored this BitKeeper nonsense for > the most part then. I knew there was a good reason to rely > on the one true source tree from Linus. I'm not screwed like > all the people working from linuxppc_2_5 are. > Right. But the "one true source tree from Linus" doesn't always work for other arches. Why? Keeping stuff in 100% never works. There almost always has been a slightly more up-to-date tree than Linus' for ages (when did the first -ac patch come out, anyone know?). And, who exactly is screwed that's working from the old 2_5 tree? There hasn't been any new activity in it for ages. Shortly (mainly once I'm done w/ finals) it'll be little more than exporting your local changes from '2_5' and applying them in 2_4_devel. Yes, history bits will be lost, but such is life. :) > On the other hand, I had to do my own PowerCore 6750 VME port > for the 2.4 kernel. That sucked. It would be nice if everyone > had the decency to submit stuff to Linus in a way that he finds > acceptable, rather than hoarding source code in obscure places > that are only accessible via non-standard non-free software. So use rsync and import into your own CVS tree. I think it sucks too that bk isn't gpl'ed, but hey. I don't really care that much. I'd wager your port would have sucked much less if you were working off the 2_5 tree too (mvme5100 support is currently 4 mvme-specific files, and some new common ones other boards use too. Some pcore boards are about as simple too). > So, how did _you_ know that 2_5 has been 'dead' for a while? Well, it was on the linuxppc-commit list, which Cort has mentioned a few time (hence it's majordomo now and not a sendmail alias like it used to be). It's even mentioned on the page that talks about the bk trees: http://www.fsmlabs.com/linuxppcbk.html -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/