This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Arrgh. arm 2.4 kernel is a fork.

From: John Lenz <lenz at cs dot wisc dot edu>
To: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
Cc: crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:53:20 +0000
Subject: Re: Arrgh. arm 2.4 kernel is a fork.
References: <415E4881.5010306@kegel.com>

On 10/02/04 01:19:45, Dan Kegel wrote:

That's it.  I'm giving up on 2.4; it's too fragmented.
I suspect 2.6 is a bit more unified.  If not, well, it's not in
deep freeze mode like 2.4 is, and the forkettes can be fixed.
- Dan

You should have done so a while ago :) (I just joined the mailing list, or I might have told you sooner). The arm state in 2.4 really is a mess, with tons and tons of forks.

All arm development happens on 2.6 now (since 2.6.4) Russell King's bk tree is automaticly merged with the -mm tree, and most changes are closely tracked by Linus. That is, there is no longer a seperate arm tree, and Russell does not release patches anymore... stuff is just merged upstream.

Anytime anyone mentions 2.4 on linux-arm-kernel or posts a patch, Russell tells them to upgrade to 2.6, as 2.4 is a dead end from the community point of view.

John


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

References:
- Arrgh. arm 2.4 kernel is a fork.
  - From: Dan Kegel

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]