From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264850AbUE2NWT (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 09:22:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264857AbUE2NWS (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 09:22:18 -0400 Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:18402 "EHLO work.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264850AbUE2NUp (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 09:20:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 06:20:38 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Hugo Mills , Vojtech Pavlik , bitkeeper-announce@work.bitmover.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bk-3.2.0 released Message-ID: <20040529132038.GB20605@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Hugo Mills , Vojtech Pavlik , bitkeeper-announce@work.bitmover.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20040518233238.GC28206@work.bitmover.com> <20040529095419.GB1269@ucw.cz> <20040529130436.GA20605@work.bitmover.com> <20040529131510.GB13999@selene> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040529131510.GB13999@selene> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 02:15:10PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 06:04:36AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 11:54:20AM +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 04:32:38PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > BK/Pro 3.2.0 has been released and is in the BK download area, > > > > > > > > http://bitmover.com/download > > > > > > Any chance of a native x86-64 version? > > > > We don't have any x86-64 machines but we could get one. I asked about this > > a while back and people told me that there was no point, the x86 one worked > > perfectly. Can you tell me what having a native one would gain? If there > > is any gain we'll do it. > > It'll allow BK to be run on machines which have a pure 64-bit > userspace (for example, Debian's current amd64 port), without having > to resort to a 32-bit chroot to run the 32-bit BK binary. OK, that's more than enough of a reason. We'll get a native one in the next week or so. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com