| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Greg KH wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> There was a bug marked for this. Sorry for being quick on it. I was |
| 7 |
> also told a while ago that the sparc team had their own kernel. I never |
| 8 |
> thought it was this one (as the metadata file sure didn't say that...) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If I'm thinking of the same bug here, the sparc patch had nothing to do |
| 11 |
with it. It wasn't even being used on the user's architecture. As far as |
| 12 |
I know the user never really said it was fixed either. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > > - development-sources are clean kernel.org kernels |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Isn't this what vanilla-sources is for? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > > - gentoo-dev-sources are the current 2.6 kernel trees for all |
| 19 |
> > > arches. There is no cesspool of patches in there, and it is |
| 20 |
> > > the kernel for the ppc64, amd64, x86, and a few other arches. |
| 21 |
> > > Making it the sparc kernel too is no big deal. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
When we make changes like this in the future, please give us some headway. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Again, sorry for the speed at which this happened, I am very sorry about |
| 27 |
> it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Not to be a totally insensitive person, but until we have a chance to get |
| 30 |
the patch worked into g-d-s, I'd strongly ask that the changes to |
| 31 |
development sources be reverted. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
- -- |
| 34 |
Jason Wever |
| 35 |
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead |
| 36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
iD8DBQFA7xmLdKvgdVioq28RAgLKAJ9kW7t/74CwdDAVdHLh3ob56krvjQCfS97b |
| 40 |
qI3AC4f8pw1rALOsRc+MZ7I= |
| 41 |
=GoPR |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives