From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <20040726025057.68338.qmail@web15204.mail.bjs.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:50:57 +0800 (CST)
From: Song Sam <samlinuxppc@yahoo.com.cn>
Subject: Re: 2.4 versus 2.6 patches
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Cc: Embedded Linux PPC list <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1090682408.4195.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>


David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 10:57 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > for most of the folks on this list, i suspect they'd be more
> > interested in patches to a 2.6- style Kconfig file,not a 2.4-style
> > config.in file, correct?
>
> Yes. The 2.4 kernel is dead.

But 2.4 kernel is still a pet for 8xx,at least.I guess
many embedded Linux development lean to 2.4 kernel for
the moment.For Linux kernel hackers,2.4 kernel was
dead but it is alive for most embedded
developers.Right? :-)

Best regards,

Sam

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/